Issue
The California Court of Appeal recently considered the issue whether documents that were requested from a water district were protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. (Laguna Beach County Water District v. Superior Court of Orange County (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,932, Cal.App. 4 Dist., Dec. 15, 2004))
Facts
Homeowner, Violet Woodhouse, sued Laguna Beach County Water District for allegedly damaging her home by conducting construction related activities on a reservoir near her home. Water District was represented by Robert Gokoo, an attorney retained by the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority (ACWA JPIA), a public agency risk pool to which Water District belonged. During the litigation process, Homeowner asked for documents from ACWA JPIA and from Diehl, Evans & Co. (Auditor), an accounting firm that conducted audits of Water District. Water District objected to producing some of the documents, claiming they were protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The trial court ruled that, even though some of the documents were protected by privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, the protection had been waived. Water District appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
In its decision, the Court of Appeal separately addressed two types of documents:
- Letters from Gokoo to ACWA JPIA. Homeowner claimed Water District waived the attorney-client or work-product privilege with regard to documents relevant to the defense that it had no knowledge of any dangerous conditions. However, the documents that Homeowner sought to obtain concerned Water District’s post-construction investigation- they were not related to any pre-construction investigation. Therefore, Water District did not waive its right to claim attorney-client privilege or attorney work product as to the letters from Gokoo to ACWA JPIA.
- Letters from Gokoo to Auditor. Homeowner also requested copies of letters that Gokoo wrote in response to Auditor’s inquiries for information about pending or threatened litigation against Water District. These letters contained Gokoo’s thoughts and ideas about pending litigation and were clearly attorney work product. Moreover, Gokoo¡¦s disclosure to Auditor of his thoughts, impressions, and conclusions did not waive the attorney work product protection. Gokoo clearly identified the information as "Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Communication" thus indicating he did not intend to waive the protection. Also, the evidence showed that Auditor intended to maintain the confidentiality of the information. Thus, Gokoo’s response letters to Auditor were protected as attorney work product.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.