The Supreme Court will review an unusual ruling in which a trial court compelled production of certain types of legal memoranda written by a party's attorneys. In Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) __ Cal.App.4th __, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court was correct to order Costco to produce portions of a pre-litigation attorney-client memo prepared for Costco by its outside counsel. We previously discussed the case in a post entitled Court Orders Production of Costco's Attorney-Client Communication in Overtime Class Action.
The statement of issues provides as follows:
#08-91 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court S163335. (B197692; 161 Cal.App.4th 488, mod. 161 Cal.App.4th 1513c; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC296369.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code § 954) protect factual statements that outside counsel conveys to corporate counsel in a legal opinion letter? (2) Does Evidence Code section 915 prohibit a trial court from conducting an in camera review of a legal opinion letter to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects facts stated in the letter?
We would not be surprised to see a reversal.