Legal Opinion
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
California Supreme Court
Decided December 13, 2007No. S123808PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
Here we consider what action is required of an attorney who receives privileged documents through inadvertence and whether the remedy of disqualification is appropriate. We conclude that, under the authority of State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799] (State Fund), an attorney in these circumstances may not read a document any more closely than is necessary to ascertain that it is privileged. Once it becomes apparent that the content is privileged, counsel must immediately notify opposing counsel and try to resolve the situation. We…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Kirsch v. DuryeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Clark v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Coito v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Ardon v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Kandel v. Brother International Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2010
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.