Page 32 - CPAAC_Fall2016

PAGE 17 9/27/2016

PAGE 18Legal Update

Attorney-Client Privileged Investigations – City of Petaluma v.
Superior Court, 2016 WL 3342543 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)

FACTS

• Andrea Waters was a firefighter and paramedic for the City.
• She took a leave of absence from her job, filed a complaint with the EEOC

asserting claims for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and then
resigned.
• The City retained outside counsel to investigate the EEOC complaint and to
assist in preparing to defend against a civil lawsuit.
• Waters sought to obtain a copy of the investigation during the discovery
phase of her civil lawsuit.
• The City refused to produce the document asserting attorney-client privilege
and the work product doctrine.
• The Superior Court ordered the document be produced.

Legal Update

Attorney-Client Privileged Investigations – City of Petaluma v. Superior
Court, 2016 WL 3342543 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)

Holding

• Documents did not need to be produced to Waters because the
dominant purpose of the investigation was to provide legal
services to the employer in anticipation of litigation.

• Assertion of the avoidable consequences doctrine by the City did
not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

9