CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    180 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« New unpublished Prop. 64 retroactivity opinion: Banales v. AT&T Wireless | Main | Supreme Court grants review in another Prop. 64 case: Young America Corp. v. Superior Court »

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d83488ed5453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UCL "unlawful" prong hypothetical:

Comments

Bill

If the defendant refused to answer the questions and objected on Fifth Amendment grounds than as the plaintiff's attorney I would move at trial to exclude any evidence that the defendant would seek to use that they had not disclosed as evidence. Under California law, information protected by privilege is typically precluded from being used as evidence. A&M Records, Inc. v. Heilman (1977) 75 Cal. App.3d 554, 566

The use of the privilege could, in a weaker case, make the plaintiff more susceptible to a summary judgment motion. However, I think, as long as there was other evidence to support the complaint, that it would survive an MSJ even though discovery had been stymied by the defense's claim of Fifth Amendment privilege.

Ron

While Bill is correct (Blackburn v. Kelso (93) 21 CA4th 414, 425-6; Marriage of Hoffmeister (84) 161 CA3d 1163, 1169), you still need to file a motion to compel. Blanket self-incrimination claims are insufficient and you need a court determination on the propriety of the response. See Fuller v. Sup. Ct. (01) 87 CA4th 299, 305. Also depends on what kind of discovery. See US v. Doe (84) 465 US 605, 610 [documents different than irogs, ie is testimonial privilege only]. Further Corporations cannot claim the privilege. Braswell v. US (88) 487 US 99, 104. Nor does it apply to records that are required to be kept by law. Craib v. Bulmash (89) 49 C3d 475, 489. Hope this helps.

John Hurley

Ron is correct. Move to compel so that you can hvae the COurt test the propriety of the invocation of privilege. Assuming the privilege was properly asserted, since the UCL claim is a civil action, you can seek to have the court draw an adverse inference from the invocation of privilege.

Kimberly

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts. I hope the reader who submitted the hypothetical will find this discussion useful.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad