site stats

Coito v. superior court 2012 54 cal. 4th 480

Web9.3.3: Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2024.010 et seq.: Attorney Work Product: Case:: Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480 . Issue: Is a witness statement that has been obtained through an attorney-directed interview entitled to protection from discovery under the work product doctrine? WebThe California Supreme Court in Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (2012) concluded that witness’s statements obtained as a result of an interview conducted by an attorney or by the attorney’s agent at the attorney’s behest, constitute work product. If the attorney objects to the production of these statements, there must be a ...

A.S. v. The Superior Court, No. H048900 Casetext Search + Citator

WebJan 15, 2013 · (21) Citing Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502 [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 607, 278 P.3d 860] (Coito), PCB argues it is necessary to submit the documents identified on the privilege log to the respondent court for in camera inspection to determine whether any are absolute work product. An in camera inspection is not … WebPeople v. McDowell, 54 Cal. 4th 395 (2012) American Coatings Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 54 Cal. 4th 446 (2012) Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. … sigmaflow support https://entertainmentbyhearts.com

Trial Bar News Schwartz Semerdjian Attorneys at Law - discovery …

WebDEBRA COITO v.SUPERIOR COURT. Supreme Court of California, 2012. 54 Cal.4th 480, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 607, 278 P.3d 860. Liu, Associate Justice. * * * In this case, we decide what work product protection, if any, should be accorded two items: first, recordings of witness interviews conducted by investigators employed by defendant’s counsel, and second, … WebMar 27, 2024 · People v. Superior Court (Pearson) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 564, 573 [rejecting district attorney’s argument that “the Legislature’s use of the word ‘defendant’ rather than ‘petitioner’ in section 1054.9,” demonstrated that the Legislature was not “creat[ing] discovery in a separate habeas corpus matter”].) Further, the Attorney WebSuperior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 489–494 (Coito) [recounting the history of work product doctrine].) When the Legislature later codified the doctrine, it assigned attorney … sigma floyd couch

Volume: Cal. 4th volume 54 Caselaw Access Project

Category:In 1957, the Legislature took up consideration of the …

Tags:Coito v. superior court 2012 54 cal. 4th 480

Coito v. superior court 2012 54 cal. 4th 480

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF GEORGIA - University …

WebDeKalb County Superior Court Approved Process Server List Friday, September 4, 2024 Last Name First Name Middle Name Company Address City State Postal Code CaseID … WebJun 23, 2024 · Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 4th 480, 502 (2012) explains that a very similar interrogatory, form interrogatory No. 12.3, asking for the identification of witnesses from whom the attorney has received statements, normally must be answered because answering the interrogatory would normally not reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions …

Coito v. superior court 2012 54 cal. 4th 480

Did you know?

WebOct 13, 2024 · (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 485 ... (Coito, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 488.) “[W]itness statements procured by an attorney are not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute work product protection.” (Id. at p. 495.) Rather, “[a]n attorney resisting discovery of a witness statement based on absolute privilege ... WebCoito v. Superior Court - 278 P.3d 860 Rule: Where a witness's statement has been obtained through attorney-directed interviews, that witness statement is protected by attorney-client work-product privilege. The witness statements would not exist but for the attorney's initiative, decision, and effort to obtain it. Facts:

WebIn Coito v. State of California (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, t he California Supreme Court, in dealing with the issue of work product privilege and the discovery of witness statements, held that: (1) a list of witnesses of whom recorded statements have been taken is not entitled to the attorney work product privilege; (2) recorded interviews of a ... WebCourt found that the introduction of evidence that the defendant’s brother attacked his wife, a key witness, was inappropriate because there was no evidence the attack was to …

WebAug 13, 2012 · (Coito v. Superior Court (June 25, 2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 493.) Also of significance, the Court held that “disclosing a list of witnesses from whom an attorney …

WebMar 4, 2024 · It also prevents attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary’s industry and efforts. In Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2012), the California Supreme Court held that “a witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed interview is, as a matter of law, entitled to at least qualified work product protection.”

WebIn Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480 (Coito), our Supreme Court held that “a witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed interview is, as a matter of law, entitled to at least qualified work product protection.” (Id. at p. 497.) The Court based this holding on the “interests that the Legislature sought to protect ... the principal in insuranceWebThe Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant the motion to compel discovery. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the … the principal investments loginWebDEBRA COITO v. SUPERIOR COURT. Supreme Court of California, 2012. 54 Cal.4th 480, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 607, 278 P.3d 860. Liu, Associate Justice. In this case, we decide what … sigma fluid s-570 technical data sheetWebCAL. CODE CIV. PROC. §§2024.010(a)(1), 2025.280(b); Terry v. SLICO(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 352, 357. The deposition grand for business data is the specific discovery tool utilized when a party in ampere case is seeking only the production of documents from a non-party. CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 2024.020(b). sigma fluid s-570 oil viscosityWebJun 18, 2014 · (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 488.) Section 667.61, part of what is commonly known as the “One Strike” law, was enacted in 1994. Although one early California Supreme Court case referred to section 667.61 as an enhancement (People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1, 8 (Rayford )), subsequent California Supreme Court … sigma flush plateWebDuring discovery, plaintiff served an interrogatory on defendants requesting the names of everyone who had provided written or recorded statements. Plaintiff also requested the … the principal insurance dentalWebOct 19, 2024 · (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 494.) Where a witness statement reveals an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research, the statement is entitled to absolute protection. A witness statement taken by an attorney possesses both derivative characteristics and non-derivative characteristics. the principal in wednesday