200 CRLA Southern California vs. Saddleback Valley Unified School District

report regarding any surveillance of Plaintiff; and any investigation reports of Plaintiff. (Goncuian Decl., Exh. 1.) Defendant objected to each of these requests on various grounds, including on the grounds that the requested items are protected by the work product doctrine. Plaintiff also attached a privilege log which indicates that Plaintiff withheld “Surveillance of Plaintiff Natalie Loera at or near 3212 West Ravenswood Dr., Anaheim, CA 92804, on April 14-15, 2024.” (Goncuian Decl., Exh. 2.)

In Defendant’s opposition, counsel explains that “the surveillance was conducted specifically at the direction of defense counsel, with counsel’s guidance, at the expense of Defendants, and the strategies and information used to capture the surveillance resulted from the impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories of defense counsel. The corresponding written reports reflect counsel’s ‘Impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories’ and are therefore considered absolute work product.” (Oppn at 7:9- 14.)

In Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, the Supreme Court held that surveillance video of a plaintiff in a personal injury action fell within the “qualified” work product protection. The court did not hold that surveillance footage is as a matter of law subject to discovery. (Id., at p. 178.) Rather, the court remanded the case to the trial court to exercise its discretion in determining whether or not such footage should be produced. (See id., at pp. 178-79.)

Attorney work product protection is now governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.030. Under the statute, “[a] writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) Further, “[t]he work product of an attorney, other than a writing described [above], is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030