Price v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 26, 1958 No. Civ. 18199Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a witness statement obtained by a party's agent is not protected by the attorney-client privilege when the agent represented to the witness that the statement would be made available to all parties, thereby negating confidentiality.

Issues

Whether a witness statement obtained by a party's agent is protected by the attorney-client privilege when the agent promised the witness the statement would be shared with all parties.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandamus issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are satisfied that, even if deemed a communication from client to attorney, the statement is unprivileged because the element of confidentiality is lacking.”

“When the client does not intend his statement to be confidential, it is not privileged.”

“It follows that the statement was not intended by the client to be confidential, and that its transmission to defendant’s attorney cannot vest it with a privilege which was expressly negatived or waived as an inducement to Gouveia to make it.”

DRAPER, J.

This mandamus proceeding arises out of an action by petitioner-plaintiff, a minor, against Mount Diablo Unified School District, the real party in interest in the present

[651]

proceeding. Plaintiff was injured in the course of a wrestling match with a fellow student, Manual Gouveia, and apparently asserts negligence of defendant’s physical education instructor in supervision of the match, and some negligent defect in the condition of the cover of the mat upon which the match was held.

After the action was filed, Gouveia made a statement to a' representative of defendant, who preserved it by means of a tape recorder. Petitioner moved, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031, for an order permitting inspection of a transcript of this recorded statement. Gouveia’s affidavit avers that the person who took his statement told him that it “would be made available to any party requesting it” in this action, and that “it would therefore be unnecessary for me to make any other statement to any person”

•

that he relied upon this representation, and that he is “unwilling to give a statement to any party at this time, covering the same subject matter.” Defendant does not in any way deny these averments, but alleges only that the statement was procured by an agent of defendant at the request of one of the attorneys for defendant, for transmission to defendant’s counsel to assist them in preparing for trial. The trial court denied the motion for inspection, solely upon the ground that the statement is privileged. Petitioner seeks mandamus requiring respondent court to order the inspection as requested.

Petitioner’s claimed right of inspection arises under the new discovery provisions (Stats. 1957, chap. 1904). The court may ‘ ‘ order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying ... of any designated . . . papers . . . not privileged . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031, subd. (a).) Defendant’s sole contention is that the written statement, or the tape recording from which it was written, is a communication from client to attorney, and thus is privileged. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1881, subd. 2.) It is not necessary to determine whether the statement by Gouveia to an “agent of the defendant” acting in some unspecified capacity becomes, when transmitted by that agent to defense counsel, a communication by defendant to its attorney within the meaning of

Price v. Superior Court

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief