Valley Health System v. Super. Ct.
Filed 12/24/09 Valley Health System v. Super. Ct. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; PRIME HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., Real Party in Interest. | E049682 (Super.Ct.No. RIC538931) OPINION |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Mark E. Johnson, Judge. Petition granted.
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Daniel K. Spradlin, and M. Lois Bobak for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Latham & Watkins, Paul DeMuro, Daniel P. Brunton, and Lauren B. Ross for Real Party in Interest.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the oppositions filed by real party in interest, and the replies filed by petitioner. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is, therefore, appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
DISCUSSION
We have concluded that although the trial court correctly rejected petitioners claim that the documents in question were protected by the attorney-client or official information privilege (Evid. Code, 954, 1040), it erred in rejecting the claim of privilege based on deliberative process. (See generally Gov. Code, 6255, subd. (a); Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325.)
Petitioner adequately established, through declarations, that the reports real party in interest seeks were submitted to the committee charged with determining the hospital districts future. It is apparent that these reports must have been considered by the committee members in making their decisions with respect to the sale of the hospital assets. Even if the reports contained factual matters, the privilege applies as it appears clear the information in the reports factored into the deliberations and decisions. (See Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136.)
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order directing petitioner to disclose the Peira reports, and to enter a new order denying real party in interests request for disclosure.
Pursuant to Government Code section 6259, the parties shall bear their own costs and attorney fees.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
KING
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
