Jason Stean v. Associated Locating, Inc. et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 07/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 19CV359049 Brandon Flora MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION vs Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC et al. Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 21CV376210 George Ku et al. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL vs Harald Herchen Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 2 LINES 3-6 24CV453483 Shivan Verma vs Santa Motion: Compel Answers x 4 Clara Valley Transportation Authority Vacated by moving party LINE 7 24CV453851 Jason Stean MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS vs Associated Locating, Inc. et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 25CV471687 Berkshire Hathaway MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Homestate Insurance Company vs Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 8 Andy Le LINE 9 25CV479556 Francisco Don DEMURRER Velasquez vs Allied Universal Please CTRL click (or scroll down to) Line 9 Security et al.

LINE 10 26CV497944 James Keene OSC TRO/Preliminary Injunction vs David Apt. Manager The parties are ordered to appear in person or remotely.

9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV430720 Capital One N.a. vs Hearing: Claim of Exemption Mayra Mendoza At the last hearing, claimant was instructed to file supplemental documents. Claimant failed to do so. Accordingly, the claim of exemption is denied.

Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-0202 within 7 days of the hearing

Calendar line 7 Case Name: Jason Sean v. Associated Plumbing, Inc. Case No.: 24CV453851

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 7 and 52 seek production of a recorded statement given by Defendant Associated Plumbing’s CEO, Timothy Gorshe, to Defendant’s liability insurer, Federated Insurance, on May 23, 2023.

Defendant objects on the grounds that the recording is protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Defendant submits declarations establishing that the statement was given confidentially and for the purpose of assisting Federated Insurance in evaluating and defending the anticipated claim arising from the incident.

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and lawyer made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. (Evid. Code, § 954.) In the insurer-insured context, California follows the “prevailing rule” that communications by an insured to a liability insurer may be privileged where the insurer has a duty to defend and the communication is intended for the information or assistance of counsel in defending the insured. (Travelers Ins. Companies v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 436, 448–449; Gene Compton’s Corp. v. Superior Court (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 365, 379.)

Where a communication has both business and legal purposes, the Court examines the dominant purpose of the communication. (Holm v. Superior Court (1954) 42 Cal.2d 500, 507.)

Defendant relies on Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 424. There, the Court of Appeal held that an insured’s statement to a liability insurer was privileged even though litigation had not yet been filed and defense counsel had not yet been retained. The court concluded that the absence of filed litigation or retained counsel did not defeat the privilege where the dominant purpose of the communication was to assist in defending against the anticipated claim.

Plaintiff argues the recording was merely part of Federated’s ordinary claims investigation and relies on Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, for the proposition that factual statements obtained during an investigation are not necessarily protected work product.

The Court finds Nacht & Lewis distinguishable. That case concerned independently prepared witness statements and did not address a communication by an insured to its liability insurer concerning an identified claim for which the insurer had a duty to defend.

Here, the circumstances support Defendant’s showing that the dominant purpose of the recorded statement was preparation for defense of the anticipated claim. Plaintiff’s counsel had already sent a Notice of Representation and Demand to Preserve Evidence before the statement was taken. Thus, at the time of the interview, Federated was not merely investigating an

unknown occurrence; it was evaluating a claim involving a represented claimant and anticipated litigation. Defendant’s declarations further establish that the communication was confidential and intended to assist in the defense of the claim.

Accordingly, Defendant has established that the recorded statement is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Work Product Doctrine

The Court further finds the recording protected by the attorney work product doctrine.

The work product doctrine protects materials prepared by a party or its agent in anticipation of litigation. (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 494–496.) Although witness statements are not categorically protected, Coito recognizes that statements obtained by an attorney or an attorney’s agent in anticipation of litigation may qualify for protection.

The recorded statement was obtained after Plaintiff had retained counsel, asserted a claim, and demanded preservation of evidence. Federated obtained the statement while evaluating and preparing for potential litigation involving its insured. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis to overcome that protection.

Disposition

Because Defendant has established that the recorded statement was a confidential communication made for the purpose of assisting in the defense of an anticipated claim, and because the statement was obtained under circumstances supporting work product protection, the recording is protected from disclosure.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 7 and 52 is DENIED.

Defendant to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo –