Legal Opinion
Saeta v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 30, 2004No. B170305PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ALDRICH, J.
INTRODUCTION
Philip M. Saeta, judge retired (petitioner) has petitioned this court for a peremptory writ of mandate. He asks us to direct the trial court to vacate its order granting a motion to compel his deposition testimony. At issue is whether statements are privileged when made during a hearing conducted by an employment termination review panel. We conclude that the proceeding, as constituted pursuant to an employment contract, was neither an arbitration nor a mediation. Thus, the statements are not protected by the privileges of Evidence Code sections 703.5 and 1119.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Foxgate Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bramalea California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Cassel v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Mills v. U.S. BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Metropolitan Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Wimsatt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.