Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California
what privilege can pro per plaintiff assert
I am in discovery phase of civil suit. Previous atty started as contingency then said wanted a retainer right before statute filing deadline. I've been on my own since. During my deposition i mentioned I had diary since 14 yrs old. His atty said I had to copy cover to cover and produce. I said it was privileged and would copy only entries after my employment w/ company. Motion to compel and sanction of $750 was filed and I filed oppposition on evidentiary relevance. Judge modified production to time of employment only but I was still sanctioned $508. Does Pro per have atty or work product privilege and what if it would be impossible for me to pay the $508 w/i 30 days ?HELP
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: what privilege can pro per plaintiff assert
You're screwed quite frankly. Pay the sanction or you'll get a jail sentence. That's what you get for being your own lawyer.
Re: what privilege can pro per plaintiff assert
Pro per has no attorney-client privlege. You can ask for additional time to pay. Try to get another attorney.
Re: what privilege can pro per plaintiff assert
The attorney-client and work product privileges are designed to safeguard the privacy of the relationship between a client and his/her attorney. Where there is no attorney, these privileges don't come into play. Even if you had an attorney the diary would not be covered by either of the privileges, as the attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between the client and the lawyer concerning the matter on which the lawyer is representing the client, while the work product privilege applies only to services performed by the attorney. Your diary would not fall into either of those categories.
Your argument about privilege was thus not viable and the court's ruling was correct. You might have had a better argument about privacy, but that would not have allowed you to withhold the entire document or, in all likelihood, even the portion that pre-dates your employment. The proper procedure would have been for you to seek a protective order and ask the court what you had to turn over.
Mr. Cotson might be overstating things a bit when he implies that you will be put in jail if you don't pay the fine. Such a development would require the other side to seek a contempt finding against you, and many lawyers aren't eager to do this. Then again, many are and the risk of such a punishment in your situation is quite real. It's just not as inevitable as the other response made it sound.