Investigators efforts when hired by attorney

Investigators efforts when hired by attorney

Coito v. Superior Court (2012), 54  Cal.4th 480    [dictum discussed witness statements and suggested efforts of investigator must reflect attorney initiative or thoughts]

2,022 Ranch, LLC v. Superior Court (Chicago Title Ins. Co.)
(2003), 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377  [“Chicago Title objected to questions to the adjuster Look concerning her interviews with third parties (the escrow company and the seller’s agent) as part of her investigation. These questions concerned her factual claims investigation and do not constitute attorney-client communications or attorney work product.”]People v. Collie (1981), 30 Cal.3d 43, at p. 59 [“Nobles also persuasively reasons that the privilege should extend not just to the attorney’s work product, but to the efforts of those who work with him to prepare the defense: “At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case. But the doctrine is an intensely practical one, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system. One of those realities is that attorneys must often rely on the assistance of investigators and other agents in the compilation of materials in preparation for trial. It is therefore necessary that the doctrine protect material prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself.” (Id. at pp. 238-239 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 154].) We conclude that the work-product doctrine applies to criminal cases and protects the work product of defense investigators.”]

Rodriquez v. McDonald Douglas (1978), 87 Cal.App.3d 626 at p.647-48

Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior Court (1969), 3 Cal.App.3d 195 at p.198 [ Protected per dictum not disapproved in Kadelbach ]

Mize v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (1975), 46 Cal.App.3d 436 at p. [Court assumed investigators reports were work product and compared them to expert’s reports but found waiver because the investigator was to testify ]

Brown v. Superior Court (1963), 218 Cal. App.2d 430 at p. 437

Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962), 58 Cal.2d 166, 178 at p. 177 [films taken by investigator hired by attorney solely for trial prep and intended to be confidential are work product but not privileged as a matter of law; court discretion must be exercised with qualified work product ]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s