Wood v. Superior Court, No. D076325 (D4d1 Mar. 13, 2020)
Plaintiff, a transgender woman, lodged a FEHA complaint against her gym with the DFEH. DFEH decided to bring suit. Plaintiff intervened. In discovery, Plaintiff claimed attorney-client privilege over some of her communications with the DFEH’s lawyers. The trial court overruled the privilege. Plaintiff took a writ, which the Court of Appeal denies.
The DFEH’s lawyers represent DFEH, not Plaintiff, a fact of which Plaintiff was apparently aware. Plaintiff might well have sought legal advice from the DFEH counsel. But that’s not enough to bring the communications within the privilege. By statute, a communication is subject to the attorney-client privilege only if it is “made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.” Evidence Code § 352. If there’s no reason to believe that an attorney client relationship existed between Plaintiff and the lawyers, there’s no privilege from the getgo.
Writ denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment