Legal Opinion

DeLuca v. State Fish Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 27, 2013No. B240597PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

Following trial and appeal in cross-actions, a single cause of action remained for trial between the parties. The plaintiff in the remaining action informed the defendant that he would be using, as an expert witness, an expert who had testified on behalf of the defendant in the prior trial. The defendant objected on the ground that the expert possessed confidential attorney-client and work product information, learned when he was retained on behalf of the defendant. The defendant then moved to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel from further representing the plaintiff, on the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. People v. MilnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. In Re Complex Asbestos LitigationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. Swartzman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. DCH Health Services Corp. v. WaiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Williamson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Borba v. Erickson CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021
  2. Estate of Michael Dempsey v. Spokane Washington Hospital Co., LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  3. People v. Moore CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Zetz v. Boston Scientific CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API