Q: What case law defines procedures handling Compelling further responses with privilege log?

A: Under California law, handling a privilege log and compelling further responses involves several steps, guided by case law and statutory provisions. When the defense asserts privilege in response to discovery requests, they must provide a detailed privilege log as outlined in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240. This log must identify the documents withheld and provide sufficient information to enable the requesting party to assess the claim of privilege.

If the plaintiff believes the privilege is improperly claimed, they can file a motion to compel further responses. It is not mandatory for the plaintiff to request an in-camera review of the privilege log immediately; this is typically considered if there is a dispute about the legitimacy of the privilege claim. The court, during the hearing on the motion to compel, may decide whether an in-camera review is necessary to determine if the documents are indeed privileged.

Requesting both a motion to compel and an order for in-camera review may seem excessive, but it can be essential for ensuring transparency and fairness in the discovery process. Case law, such as Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, and Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, provides guidance on how courts handle privilege claims and the procedures for resolving disputes over privileged documents.