California Supreme Court Explains Protections For Attorneys’ Work Product.

Two items were claimed to be work product:  recordings of witness interviews conducted by investigators employed by counsel and information concerning the identity of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements.  Regarding the recorded statements, the Supreme Court stated:  “we hold that witness statements procured by an attorney are not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute work product protection . . . Upon an adequate showing, the trial court should then determine, by making an in camera inspection if necessary, whether absolute work product protection applies . . . witness statements procured by an attorney are entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection . . .”  Regarding the identity of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements, the Supreme Court said they are not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute or qualified work product privilege.  Upon a proper showing, the trial court should make an in camera inspection.  Coito v. Sup. Ct. (State of California) (Cal. Sup. Ct.; June 25, 2012) 54 Cal.4th 480.