CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Privileges
......Litigation Privilege
.........Limitations
14 Cards On This Topic:

Video-recording of an unseemly private brawl, no matter how widely distributed, is far removed from a citizen's constitutional right of petition or free speech involving a public issue; Ds' anti-SLAPP motion properly denied.

Where "borrowed" statute is more specific than litigation privilege and they are not reconcilable, unfair competition law claims based on conduct prohibited by the borrowed statute are excepted from the privilege.

Claims against atty-Ds not barred by litigation privilege as their misconduct interfered with nuisance abatement, involved communications with 3d parties, and did not try to achieve objects of litigation.

CC 47(b)(1) exception to litigation privilege applies only to statements made in disso. proceeding by or against 3d party, not where statements are made against a party.

Conduct violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is not shielded by the litigation privilege, but privilege does preclude liability on P's C/A for IIED.

Anti-SLAPP motion should not have been granted where letters and emails at issue were not covered by the litigation privilege as prelitigation communications.

Litigation privilege did not apply to lawyers' demand letters to manufacturer's customers, claiming products they sold were illegal, before lawsuits filed against customers.

Litigation privilege does not bar legal malpractice claims based on a litigator's failure to provide competent representation in a prior lawsuit.

Payless' tortious disclosure of W's confidential prescription information to H, against W's orders, not protected by litigation privilege from damages caused by H's using information in custody fight.

References to worker's crim. record in attorney's demand letter re unfair competition claim falls outside Civ. Code §47 (b) privilege, as do phone calls to worker's probation officer.

Newspaper can’t assert litigation privilege re statements in retraction where not part of official proceeding and not established that retraction made in anticipation of litigation.

Although an appraisal hrg is an arbitration and an appraiser is immune from suit over his role as appraiser, litigation privilege does not protect an expert from negligence suit over his role as an expert hired by Ps.

Reasonable limits exist on type and character of prelitigation statements which are protected by Civ. Code §47 (b) litigation privilege.

By raising Civ. Code §47 (b) litigation privilege, D did not waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection.