McKESSON HBOC, INC., Petitioner,
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT of San Francisco County, Respondent;
The State of Oregon, By and Through the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Board et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 20, 2004.
Rehearing Denied March 19, 2004.
Review Denied June 9, 2004.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, James E. Lyons, Timothy A. Miller, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Robert J. Stumpf, Jr., San Francisco, for petitioner, McKesson HBOC, Inc.
James Arthur Howell, Giovanni Prezioso, Meyer Eisenberg, Melinda Hardy, Edward C. Schweitzer, Jr., for amicus curiae (United States Securities and Exchange Commission) on behalf of petitioner.
Latham & Watkins, James Joseph Farrell, Robert K. Lu, Houman B. Shadab, Los Angeles, Laurie B. Smilan, Reston, VA, David M. Brodsky, New York, NY, Matthew D. Harrison, San Francisco, George R. Kramer, for amicus curiae (Securities Industry Association) on behalf of petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Cooper & Kirkham, Josef D. Cooper, Tracy R. Kirkham, John J. Bogdanor, San Francisco, Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Shlachter, Scott A. Shorr, Portland, OR, for real party in interest the State of Oregon.
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Richard M. Heimann, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse, San Francisco, Steven E. Fineman, New York, NY, for real party in interest Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth.
Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Nicole Lavallee, San Francisco, Karen Rosenthal, for real party in interest Utah State Retirement Board.
Heins, Mills & Olson, Bryan L. Crawford, Minneapolis, MN, Howard, Phillips & Andersen, Gregory D. Phillips, for real party in interest Minnesota State Board of Investment.
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.
KAY, P.J.
The issue raised in this writ proceeding is whether the target of a government investigation may share privileged documents with the government without waiving the attorney-client privilege or the protection afforded attorney work product. We conclude petitioner waived the attorney-client privilege and work product protection for documents shared with the government.
BACKGROUND
On April 28...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
