Opinion
Page 1513c
161 Cal.App.4th 1513c __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant and Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; GREG RANDALL et al., Plaintiffs and Real Parties in Interest. B197692 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division April 28, 2008Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC296369
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
The opinion filed by this court on March 27, 2008 (161 Cal.App.4th 488; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), certified for publication, is hereby modified as follows:
The third full paragraph on page 16 [161 Cal.App.4th 505, advance report, 2d par.], is deleted and in its stead, insert the following paragraph:
Chadbourne "is the landmark California case on corporate attorney-client privilege." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1496.) More recent cases discussing the privilege, such as Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th 1485, have relied upon Chadbourne as well as Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981) 449 U.S. 383 [66 L.Ed.2d 584, 101 S.Ct. 677] (Upjohn). Upjohn "recognized that in a corporate setting, the attorney-client privilege may extend to communications involving middle and lower level employees . . . ." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1497.) Additionally, Upjohn "acknowledged the importance of legal advice to corporate employees at all levels . . . ." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 1498.)
There is no change in the judgment.