Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV23846, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV23846    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 28

Said v.  Houston

19STCV23846

Plaintiff, Jessie Said, seeks to compel a further response to a request for production from Defendant, Alexandra Fiero Houston, etc.  The subject request seeks the production of a witness statements obtained by Defendant’s counsel from Sherena Brown.  The Court denies the motion.

DISCUSSION

The California Legislature has declared:

“It is the policy of the state to do both of the following:

(a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases.

(b) Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary’s industry and efforts.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.020.)

The California Legislature has also declared:

“The work product of an attorney, other than a writing described in subdivision (a), is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030.)

The California Supreme Court has held, “[A] witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed interview is entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection. A party seeking disclosure has the burden of establishing that denial of disclosure will unfairly prejudice the party in preparing its claim or defense or will result in an injustice.  (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499.)

Defendant. has established that the statement at issue here were created by or at the direction of counsel or the insurance carrier responsible for retaining counsel to defend Defendants.  The statement is Attorney Work Product and entitled to protection as such.  Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing that denial of the disclosure of the statement would unfairly prejudice her.  Plaintiff could readily take Ms. Brown’s deposition.  If Defendant refreshes her recollection with the statement, Plaintiff will be able to review it.   (Evidence Code § 771.)

CONCLUSION 

            The motion is DENIED.  Plaintiff is to give notice.