New California Supreme Court Decision Will Affect Whether And When Parties Obtain Witness Statements In Litigation, Particularly In Class Actions
By Michael Kun
On Monday, June 25, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Coito v. Superior Court, addressing the issue of whether a party in litigation could rely upon the work product doctrine to withhold witness statements obtained by its attorneys or the identities of persons who had given such statements.
In short, while parties in California have long relied upon dicta in the Court of Appeal decision known as Nacht v. Lewis for the proposition that such information is protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine, case-by-case determinations will now be required to determine whether a party must provide such information to its opponent in discovery in California state court cases.
In its decision, the Court rejected the dicta in Nacht that provided for an absolute privilege for such witness statements, holding instead that witness statements may be entitled to an absolute privilege under some circumstances.
The Court explained, “In light of the legislatively declared policy and the legislative history of the work product privilege, we hold that the recorded witness statements are entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection. The witness statements may be entitled to absolute protection if defendant can show that disclosure would reveal its ‘attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.’ (§ 2018.030, subd. (a).) If not, then the items may be subject to discovery if plaintiff can show that ‘denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice [her] in preparing [her] claim . . . or will result in an injustice.’ (§ 2018.030, subd. (b).)” (Emphasis added.)
As for the identities of persons who provided witness statements to counsel, those will now be easier to obtain in California state court cases. The Court explained, “As to the identity of witnesses from whom defendant’s counsel has obtained statements, we hold that such information is not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute or qualified work product protection. In order to invoke the privilege, defendant must persuade the trial court that disclosure would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case (absolute privilege) or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or efforts (qualified privilege).” (Emphasis added.)
This decision will have a great impact on the manner in which cases are litigated in California, particularly as they relate to litigation strategy. The decisions whether to require a party to turn over witness statements obtained by its attorneys, or disclose the identities of persons who provided statements, will generally be left to the discretion of the judge. Of course, all judges differ. Some judges may be more inclined to require the production of this information than others. Accordingly, parties will have to give considerable thought to when they wish to obtain written statements, mindful that they may have to disclose them to the opposing party.
This will be an especially important strategic decision in class actions and collective actions, where defendants often obtain a great many written statements from putative class members early in the case for use later. A defendant must now be concerned that it may be required to turn over all of those statements early in the case, educating the plaintiff’s counsel about the defendant’s strategy in the process and, perhaps, encouraging them to contact those putative class members to try to get them to recant their statements or to try to stop other putative class members from speaking with defendant’s counsel. It will also be an important strategic decision in those cases where attorneys seek to have witnesses sign statements early to “lock in” their testimony, with no intention of using those statements in the case unless the witness later changes his or her testimony.