On April 18, 2018 a
Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)
was filed
involving a dispute between
Webspectator Corporation,
and
Holscher Mark Charles,
Kirkland & Ellis Llp,
for Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 51
BC702466 December 13, 2018
WEBSPECTATOR CORPORATION VS KIRKLAND & 1:30 PM
ELLIS LLP ET AL
Judge: Honorable Dennis J. Landin CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: D. Vallin ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: A. Alba Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter
The Court having taken Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (4) under submission after the
supplemental briefs were submitted on 12/5/18 now rules as follows:
The Court has considered the moving, opposition, reply and supplemental papers filed relating to
four separate discovery motions as well as oral argument and now rules as follows:
Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections 1 and 3 to the evidence presented in support of Defendant
K&E’s opposition to its motion to compel supplemental responses to form interrogatories, set
two, and motion to compel requests for production, set two, are overruled. Objections 2 and 4 to
the same are sustained.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set two, is granted to the
extent that the defendant must provide a verified response regarding the identity of the client
with respect to which it claims the attorney client privilege.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel requests for production, set two, is granted. Although the Court
finds that K&E has shown enough evidence to establish that it represented A. Parreira on a
separate personal matter, based on the other evidence before the court- especially the November
2014 retainer- any separate representation and resulting privilege claim ended in December 2015
when K&E resumed representing Webspectator.
Moreover, the plaintiff has met its burden to show that A. Parreira waived any attorney-client
privileged communication with K&E by showing that when he used the Webspectator email
account he was Webspectator’s CEO and was communicating in whole or in part about
Webspectator business. The case of Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. LLC (2011) 191 Cal.
App. 1047, does not compel a different result, as argued by K&E. In that case, the plaintiff was
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
December 13, 2018
Case Filing Date
April 18, 2018
Category
Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 10/21/2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 51 BC702466 December 13, 2018 WEBSPECTATOR CORPORATION VS KIRKLAND & 1:30 PM ELLIS LLP ET AL Judge: Honorable Dennis J. Landin CSR: None Judicial Assistant: D. Vallin ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: A. Alba Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter The Court having taken Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (4) under submission after the supplemental briefs were submitted on 12/5/18 now rules as follows: The Court has considered the moving, opposition, reply and supplemental papers filed relating to four separate discovery motions as well as oral argument and now rules as follows: Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections 1 and 3 to the evidence presented in support of Defendant K&E’s opposition to its motion to compel supplemental responses to form interrogatories, set two, and motion to compel requests for production, set two, are overruled. Objections 2 and 4 to the same are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set two, is granted to the extent that the defendant must provide a verified response regarding the identity of the client with respect to which it claims the attorney client privilege. Plaintiff’s motion to compel requests for production, set two, is granted. Although the Court finds that K&E has shown enough evidence to establish that it represented A. Parreira on a separate personal matter, based on the other evidence before the court- especially the November 2014 retainer- any separate representation and resulting privilege claim ended in December 2015 when K&E resumed representing Webspectator. Moreover, the plaintiff has met its burden to show that A. Parreira waived any attorney-client privileged communication with K&E by showing that when he used the Webspectator email account he was Webspectator’s CEO and was communicating in whole or in part about Webspectator business. The case of Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. LLC (2011) 191 Cal. App. 1047, does not compel a different result, as argued by K&E. In that case, the plaintiff was Minute Order Page 1 of 2