Legal Opinion

Marylander v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 28, 2000No. B138779PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.

Introduction

A defendant in pending civil litigation seeks to compel discovery from a state agency of records that are relevant to his defense in the underlying case. The records are memoranda from the state agency to the Governor’s Office. The trial court denied a motion to compel production, agreeing with the state agency that such memoranda are absolutely privileged on the grounds that correspondence to the Governor is exempt from disclosure as a public record, and a common law “deliberative process” privilege absolutely protects such interoffice communications in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Pitchess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Roberts v. City of PalmdaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Fortunato v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  3. Department of Motor Vehicles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. Los Angeles Unified School District v. Trustees of the Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension PlanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API