Coito v. Superior Court
278 P.3d 860, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607, 54 Cal.4th 480 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's work product doctrine, witness statements obtained through an attorney-directed interview are entitled, as a matter of law, to at least qualified work product protection. A list identifying which witnesses an attorney has interviewed is not automatically protected, but may be shielded from discovery if the objecting party shows its disclosure would reveal attorney tactics, impressions, or would result in the opposing party taking undue advantage of the attorney's efforts.
Facts:
- On March 9, 2007, 13-year-old Jeremy Wilson drowned in the Tuolumne River.
- His mother, Debra Coito, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against several defendants, including the State of California.
- Six other juveniles witnessed the incident, and there were allegations that all the juveniles were engaged in criminal conduct immediately before the drowning.
- Counsel for the State of California sent two investigators from the Department of Justice to interview four of the six juvenile witnesses.
- The state's counsel provided the investigators with the specific questions he wanted them to ask.
- Each of the four interviews was audio-recorded onto a separate compact disc.
- At a later deposition of one of the interviewed witnesses, the state's counsel used the content of that witness's recorded interview during questioning.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Coito sued the State of California for wrongful death in California superior court (trial court).
- During discovery, Coito served the State with form interrogatory No. 12.3, seeking the identities of witnesses from whom statements were taken, and a demand for production of the audio recordings.
- The State objected to both requests, asserting the attorney work product privilege.
- Coito filed a motion to compel discovery with the trial court.
- The trial court denied the motion (except for one recording it found was waived), ruling that the recordings were absolutely privileged and the witness list was subject to qualified privilege.
- Coito (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the trial court's denial.
- A divided Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that neither the recordings nor the witness list was entitled to work product protection as a matter of law, and directed the trial court to grant the motion to compel.
- The State of California (defendant) sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's statutory work product doctrine provide protection for (1) audio recordings of witness interviews conducted by an attorney's investigators and (2) a list identifying the witnesses from whom counsel has obtained such statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Liu, J.
Yes, California's work product doctrine provides at least qualified protection for the witness recordings and may provide protection for the witness list upon a proper showing. First, witness statements obtained through an attorney-directed interview are, as a matter of law, entitled to at least qualified work product protection. This is because obtaining such statements requires an attorney's industry and effort, and allowing opposing counsel to discover them on mere demand would permit them to 'ride free' on an adversary's work, contrary to the policy of § 2018.020. These statements may receive absolute protection if the party resisting discovery can show that disclosure would reveal the attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories, which may occur through the specific questions asked or the selection of witnesses. Second, information identifying which witnesses have given statements is not automatically protected. The objecting party must show that disclosing the list would reveal the attorney's case evaluation (absolute protection) or would allow opposing counsel to unfairly take advantage of the attorney's industry in selecting and locating those witnesses (qualified protection).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and clarifies the scope of the work product doctrine in California, particularly after the legislature codified it in response to the court's earlier ruling in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court. The court establishes a clear default rule that attorney-procured witness statements are, at a minimum, qualifiedly protected, resolving a split among lower courts. This framework protects an attorney's trial preparation and strategic efforts while still allowing for discovery upon a showing of unfair prejudice or injustice, thus balancing the competing policies of privacy in preparation and liberal discovery. By disapproving a line of cases that treated witness statements as purely evidentiary, the court reinforces the principle that an attorney's 'industry and effort' are a core component of protected work product.
