D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court
36 Cal. Rptr. 468, 60 Cal. 2d 723, 388 P.2d 700 (1964)
Rule of Law:
A communication from a corporate employee to the corporation's attorney is not privileged as a matter of law simply because of the employment relationship. To determine if the attorney-client privilege applies, a court must conduct a factual inquiry into several factors, including the employee's connection to the matter, the dominant purpose of the communication, and the intent of the communicators to maintain confidentiality.
Facts:
- Constance Smith was injured when she fell on a sidewalk.
- D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. (Chadbourne) was the company that had performed work on the sidewalk.
- John Makuszi, an employee of Chadbourne, had performed work on the sidewalk both before and after Smith's accident.
- An investigator and adjuster, Louis Rovens, worked for a firm hired by Chadbourne's insurance carrier to investigate accidents.
- Rovens obtained a written statement from Makuszi as part of the investigation into Smith's fall.
- The statement was transmitted from Rovens to his employer, then to the insurance carrier, and finally to the attorneys retained by the insurance carrier to defend Chadbourne.
- By the time litigation commenced, Makuszi was unavailable for deposition because he was on active duty with the Armed Forces in Germany.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Constance Smith sued D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. in a California trial court for personal injuries.
- During discovery, the Smiths served interrogatories and subsequently filed a motion to compel inspection of a written statement by Chadbourne's employee, John Makuszi.
- Chadbourne opposed the motion, arguing the statement was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- The trial court granted the Smiths' motion and ordered Chadbourne to produce the statement for inspection.
- Chadbourne (petitioner) sought a writ of mandate from the California Supreme Court to compel the trial court (respondent) to vacate its discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a written statement from a corporate employee, obtained by an investigator for the corporation's insurance carrier for the purpose of defending against potential litigation, protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No. A corporate employee's statement is not privileged as a matter of law; its privileged status is a question of fact for the trial court to decide. The court held that the party claiming the privilege—here, Chadbourne—bears the burden of proving that the communication falls within the terms of the statute. The court disapproved of the broad holding in Gene Compton’s Corp. v. Superior Court, which suggested that such statements are always privileged. Instead, it established an 11-factor framework to guide trial courts, emphasizing that the analysis must consider the intent of the person from whom the information emanates. Key considerations include whether the employee is speaking as the voice of the corporation or merely as a witness, and whether the dominant purpose of the communication was for confidential transmittal to an attorney. In this case, Chadbourne failed to show that Makuszi, the employee, intended his statement to be a confidential communication to his employer's attorney, or that he was anything more than a witness to the facts. Since the facts were inconclusive, the trial court's determination that the statement was not privileged was upheld.
Dissenting - McComb, J.
Yes. The dissent would have granted the writ of mandate and found the statement privileged. The opinion is brief and incorporates by reference the reasoning of the lower District Court of Appeal opinion, which had ruled in favor of finding the communication privileged.
Analysis:
This case significantly shaped the application of the attorney-client privilege in the corporate context in California. It rejected a simplistic, categorical rule that protected all employee statements funneled to an attorney, instead establishing a nuanced, fact-intensive inquiry. By articulating a multi-factor test, the court provided a durable framework that forces corporations to justify privilege claims on a case-by-case basis, balancing the corporation's need for confidential legal advice with the principles of broad discovery. This decision prevents corporations from using the privilege as a blanket shield to hide the knowledge of employee-witnesses merely by routing their statements through counsel.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"