Q: Privilege log- interrogatories??

A: In California, a privilege log is typically not required when responding to interrogatories, as opposed to requests for production of documents. This is because interrogatories seek information, not the production of privileged documents. However, there are some exceptions and nuances to consider:

1. No explicit requirement in the Code of Civil Procedure: The California Code of Civil Procedure, which governs discovery, does not explicitly require a privilege log for interrogatories.

2. Objections based on privilege: If an interrogatory seeks information that is protected by privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine), the responding party may object to the interrogatory on those grounds. The objection should clearly state the specific privilege being asserted.

3. Meet and confer: If the propounding party believes that the objection based on privilege is improper, they may request a meet and confer session to discuss the objection and try to resolve the issue informally.

4. Motion to compel: If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, the propounding party may file a motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories. The court will then decide whether the claimed privilege applies and whether the responding party must provide the requested information.

5. Rare instances: In some rare cases, a court might require a privilege log for interrogatories if the interrogatories are so broad that they effectively seek the production of documents or if there is a dispute about whether the privilege applies to specific information.

While the California Code of Civil Procedure does not explicitly address privilege logs for interrogatories, case law and common practice have established that privilege logs are generally not required unless the court orders otherwise in specific circumstances.