Modification: Wood v. Superior Court (CFG Jamacha LLC)

CHRISTYNNE LILI WRENE WOOD,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

Respondent;

CFG JAMACHA, LLC, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

No. D076325

(San Diego County Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00019066-CU-CR-CTL)

California Courts of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division One

Filed April 8, 2020

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 13, 2020, be modified as follows:

On pages 5 and 6, in fifth sentence of the paragraph beginning, "After the parties were unable," the phrase "Crunch's public statements" is replaced with "DFEH's public statements," so that the modified paragraph reads as follows:

After the parties were unable to resolve their dispute informally, Crunch filed a motion to compel production of documents, including the email at issue. Crunch contended that the documents were relevant, discoverable, and nonprivileged. Crunch disputed that an attorney-client relationship could exist between the DFEH and Wood, given DFEH's governmental function. Among other things, Crunch cited DFEH's letters to Crunch during its investigation of Wood's complaint, where it stated that " 'DFEH serves as a neutral fact-finder and represents the state of California rather than the complaining party.' " Crunch asserted these letters were consistent with DFEH's public statements, which state, " 'The DFEH will conduct an impartial investigation. [DFEH] is not an advocate for either the person complaining or the person complained against. [DFEH] represents the state.' " Crunch argued that DFEH may act only on behalf of the state and, similar to a criminal prosecutor, it could not compromise its impartiality by undertaking to represent a specific individual. Crunch concluded that Wood could not show that her communications with DFEH were for the purpose of securing legal advice or retaining DFEH lawyers as her counsel.

There is no change in the judgment.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

Copies to: All parties