Legal Case: Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal. 4th 807 (2007)
Judicial History:
Various plaintiffs sued Mitsubishi Motors Corporation after a sport utility vehicle rolled over while driven on a freeway. The trial court entered an order granting the defense a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s legal team and experts. The California Court of Appeal affirmed its decision and plaintiffs sought review.
Facts:
Plaintiffs’ attorney obtained notes from one of the defense attorneys and used them during a deposition to impeach a defense expert. The notes were in a dialogue format and summarized the conversations between the defense counsel and defense experts. The court determined that plaintiffs’ attorney did not have the right to read the document any more closely than was necessary to determine that the information was privileged. Once the plaintiffs’ attorney confirmed the content was privileged, the attorney should have immediately notified defense counsel and move to resolve the situation. However, plaintiffs’ attorney made copies and disseminated them to plaintiffs ‘experts and other attorneys. Defense counsel moved to disqualify the plaintiff’s legal team and experts on the ground that the plaintiff’s attorney unethically used defense counsel work product. The trial court held that the notes were protected work product under Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, because they contained the ideas of the defense attorney and his legal team about the case. Plaintiff’s attorney and experts were disqualified and the California Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed its decision.
Issues:
Whether or not the Court erred in stating that the document in question was protected as attorney work product and was it proper for the court to disqualify the plaintiff's legal team?
Rules:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.030
(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any
Judicial History:
Various plaintiffs sued Mitsubishi Motors Corporation after a sport utility vehicle rolled over while driven on a freeway. The trial court entered an order granting the defense a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s legal team and experts. The California Court of Appeal affirmed its decision and plaintiffs sought review.
Facts:
Plaintiffs’ attorney obtained notes from one of the defense attorneys and used them during a deposition to impeach a defense expert. The notes were in a dialogue format and summarized the conversations between the defense counsel and defense experts. The court determined that plaintiffs’ attorney did not have the right to read the document any more closely than was necessary to determine that the information was privileged. Once the plaintiffs’ attorney confirmed the content was privileged, the attorney should have immediately notified defense counsel and move to resolve the situation. However, plaintiffs’ attorney made copies and disseminated them to plaintiffs ‘experts and other attorneys. Defense counsel moved to disqualify the plaintiff’s legal team and experts on the ground that the plaintiff’s attorney unethically used defense counsel work product. The trial court held that the notes were protected work product under Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, because they contained the ideas of the defense attorney and his legal team about the case. Plaintiff’s attorney and experts were disqualified and the California Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed its decision.
Issues:
Whether or not the Court erred in stating that the document in question was protected as attorney work product and was it proper for the court to disqualify the plaintiff's legal team?
Rules:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.030
(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any