California Court of Appeal

In a wrongful termination action, the Court of Appeal holds that 1) the trial court had to conduct further proceedings to determine whether a witness waived her claims of attorney-client privilege with respect to the production of documents; 2) the trial court erred in compelling the witness to answer certain deposition questions based on its finding of no attorney-client privilege; 3) the trial court erred by considering conduct protected by the litigation privilege in its punitive damages ruling; 4) the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the defendant and the witness did not establish a basis for privity between them for purposes of collateral estoppel; and 5) the trial court's consideration of evidence that the plaintiff had been found "factually innocent" of criminal charges in ruling on a motion in limine was error.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/21/2012
• Published 05/21/2012

Judges

• Croskey

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Cohon & Pollak, Katten Muchin Rosenman