At first glance, blushing, all done around the retention lawyer seems to merit protection from discovery to promote a flourishing active lawyer-clientlist relationship. It is certain that knowledge of the retention date in relation to the underlying time line could reveal the purpose of the discussion between counsel and client – a subject that is, on the other hand, the subject of the exercise of privileges. And common sense dictates” “the ultimate motive of the client for litigation or the deference of a lawyer is privileged.” In re Grand Jury Witness v. United States, 695 F.2d 359, 362 (9. Cir. But despite the above concerns, more than likely any court pressed with the issue, the date of the lawyer and client first communicated to be an “independent fact” unprotected under client privilege. Finally, the fact that there is a solicitor-client relationship is not confidential, and the date itself is not technically a confidential message, but an underlying event. The State Farm Fire Court decision, see 54 Cal.App.4th 625, is particularly instructive with respect to the denial of privileges, while remaining attentive to the underlying facts to which the communication refers. In State Farm, the court found that solicitor-client privilege did not extend to protect knowledge of facts such as business practices or the existence of documents, or independent facts related to communications such as the fact that they took place, the date, date and participants. Id. It is “independent facts” that do not deserve to be protected.

But at some point, he can no longer be privileged. The court was careful not to propose an “expiry date” for the privilege, so lawyers and clients had to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the information contained in an invoice for a long-closed case remained preferred. (The absence of a light line can cause many more PRA conflicts.) Judge Werdegar contradicted and indicted Facts of the CaseIn July 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed an APPLICATION by the PRA to the Los Angeles County Board of Directors to request invoices indicating the amounts charged to the county by law firms in connection with nine complaints of excessive violence against inmates. The county agreed to produce copies of invoices for three of the complaints that were no longer pending, removing inside information from the copies. The other six appeals were still pending and the county stated that the information contained in the bills of the law firms for these shares was privileged and therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 6254 (k) of the PRA. The county also withheld these invoices as part of the “catchall” exception of the PRA in Section 6255 of the Government Code, which allows a public body to withhold records where “the public interest that has served by not disclosing the protocol clearly outweighs the public interest that is served by the disclosure of the protocol.” Accordingly, the request to impose the conservation agreement is DENIED. Since the Court of Justice refuses to produce in this case for privileged reasons, the Court of Justice will not currently rule on the adequacy of the withholding agreement on the allocation of royalties. If the applicant were to file a tax application and submit the conservation agreement to the Court on that date, the parties may raise the question of whether this agreement should influence the allocation of taxes in this briefing. In its application, based on the language of the 2005 agreement, the City argued that it was a current customer who was entitled to automatic disqualification, referring to the California rule of professional conduct 3-310 and the rule Flatt v.

Sup. Crt. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 284.