In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Association v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals explained the Common Interest doctrine of the attorney-client privilege. This case involved a contested discovery request by the defendant. The defendant sought to obtain information disclosed by counsel of the plaintiff HOA at pre-litigation meetings. The defendant claimed that the presence of homeowners (who were affiliated with the defendant) at the pre-litigation meetings constituted a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. The plaintiff claimed the disclosure was was protected under the Common Interest Doctrine.
The Court held the information to be privileged. The court explained that the Common Interest doctrine was a qualified privilege dependent on the content and circumstances of the communication sought to be privileged; requiring that the two parties have (1) a common interest in securing legal advice related to the same matter, and (2) the communications are made to advance that common interest. Since the homeowners were concerned with their respective property values in relation to the claim made by the HOA they shared a common interest in the legal status of the HOA’s claim. Also, since the disclosures were made pursuant to the HOA’s claims, they were made to advance said common interest. The court held that because the HOA was required by law to notify all homeowners of upcoming litigation, they had to disclose the information to homeowners affiliated with the defendant, and that did not destroy the privilege.
The court concluded that the decision did not expand the scope of the A/C privilege – this was only applying the recognized rules to an unusual set of facts.