Ruling on Submitted Matter

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.January 8, 2016

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 02:27:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Rocky Baio COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 09/09/2016 DEPT: 20 CLERK: Art Alvara REPORTER/ERM: CASE NO: 56-2016-00476929-CU-BT-VTA CASE TITLE: Weinberg vs. Marchewka CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Business Tort EVENT TYPE: Ruling on Submitted Matter STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Stolo The Court, having previously taken the Motion to Compel under submission, now rules as follows: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents and for monetary sanctions. Motion was opposed by defendant, who also sought sanctions. The motion was filed May 20, 2016, and after a number of delays was finally heard on August 30, 2016. After reviewing the moving and opposition papers and hearing argument, the matter was taken under submission. The court now rules as follows: This motion is in respect to RFPs 1-6 and 7-12. The court understands that the remaining disputes are, first, whether plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log with respect to objections based upon attorney client privilege and the attorney work product rule and, second, whether plaintiff is entitled to the production of the records of the non-party Ms. Holliday. (See p. 2, lines 4-10, of plaintiff's reply brief.) The showing was minimal but the court is satisfied that there was a sufficient effort to meet and confer and that plaintiff has also met her burden of showing good cause to proceed with the motion. Plaintiff is correct that if there is an objection to an inspection demand on the basis of attorney client privilege or attorney work product rule, then a privilege log is generally required. A claim of privilege is not self-authenticating and plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log to determine whether or not to contest the claim of privilege. (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116.) As provided in the Catalina case, "The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circumstances. In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted." (Id. at pp. 1119-1120.) Defendant to provide a privilege log which complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (b), and the cited passage from Catalina, supra, by October 7, 2016. However, plaintiff's request to compel the production of records related to the non-party Ms. Holliday is denied. (See Life Technologies v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal. App.4th 640.) Applying the "analytical framework" set out in Life Technologies, the court finds, in this particular case, that Ms. Holliday's private VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 09/09/2016 Page 1 DEPT: 20 CASE TITLE: Weinberg vs. Marchewka CASE NO: 56-2016-00476929-CU-BT-VTA financial interest outweighs the public interest. The court was particularly persuaded by the fact that Ms. Holliday has objected to defendant's production of her confidential records, that the request is vastly overbroad, and that certainly most, if not all, of the records would not be directly relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. This order is without prejudice to plaintiff making a further request for a more limited category of records supported by good cause showing that the records would be directly relevant to this lawsuit. Each party to bear their own attorney's fees and costs. Clerk to give notice. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 09/09/2016 Page 2 DEPT: 20