## Facts

- Thirteen-year-old Jeremy Wilson drowned in a river in Modesto, California, and several juveniles witnessed the incident.
- Jeremy’s mother, Debra Coito, sued multiple defendants, including the State of California, for wrongful death.
- During its investigation, investigators employed by the State’s attorneys interviewed four juvenile eyewitnesses using attorney-prepared questions and made audio recordings of each interview.
- Coito served a form interrogatory seeking the names and addresses of persons from whom the State or its agents obtained written or recorded statements about the incident.
- Coito also sought production of the audio recordings of the witness interviews.
- The State objected to both requests under the attorney work-product doctrine.
- The trial court denied Coito’s motion to compel without in camera review, ruling the recordings were absolutely protected work product and the interrogatory information was at least qualified work product.
- The Court of Appeal issued a writ directing the trial court to compel the discovery, concluding work product did not apply as a matter of law.
- The California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether investigator-recorded witness interviews obtained at counsel’s direction are protected work product, and if so, whether they receive absolute or qualified protection.
2. Whether the identities of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements are automatically protected as attorney work product.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded.
- Recorded witness interviews taken by an attorney’s investigator at counsel’s direction are, as a matter of law, at least qualified work product.
- Such recordings receive absolute protection only if disclosure would reveal counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.
- The identities of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements are not automatically protected (neither absolutely nor qualifiedly) as a matter of law; protection requires a case-specific showing.
- On remand, the trial court was directed to apply the statutory absolute/qualified framework, including in camera review as appropriate and consideration of any showing of unfair prejudice or injustice to overcome qualified protection.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute work product (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.030(a)) protects writings reflecting an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories and is not discoverable under any circumstances.
- Qualified work product (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.030(b)) protects other attorney work product unless denial of discovery would unfairly prejudice the requesting party in preparing its case or result in an injustice.
- The act of obtaining a witness statement at counsel’s direction can constitute work product because it reflects counsel’s decisions about whom to interview and what questions to ask.
- Recorded witness statements are not categorically absolute work product; courts must determine whether the recording, in whole or part, reveals protected attorney thought processes.
- A party resisting disclosure of witness identities must show that the requested information would reveal attorney tactics or evaluation (supporting absolute protection) or otherwise qualifies as work product (supporting qualified protection).

## Conclusion

The court held that investigator-recorded witness interviews obtained at counsel’s direction are always at least qualified work product and may be absolutely protected if disclosure would reveal attorney mental impressions, while rejecting any automatic work-product protection for the identities of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements absent a case-specific showing.


Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 4th 480 (Cal. 2012)