Is a party wrong to claim that they waived attorney-client privilege by agreeing to an in camera review, and not producing a privilege log?

Real party contends that petitioner waived the privilege by agreeing to an in camera review, failing to produce the emails or appear before the superior court, and not producing a privilege log. Real party is incorrect. The only three bases for a waiver are: (1) disclosing a privileged communication in a nonconfidential context; (2) failing to claim the privilege in a proceeding in which the holder has the legal standing and opportunity to do so; and (3) failing to assert the privilege in a timely response to an inspection demand. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 (Catalina).) Real party does not contend that petitioner failed to assert the privilege, just that it did so improperly and failed to provide a privilege log. "[I]f a party responding to an inspection demand timely serves a response asserting an objection based on the attorney-client privilege . . . , the trial court lacks authority to order the objection waived even if the responding party fails to serve a privilege log, serves an untimely privilege log, or serves a privilege log that fails either to adequately identify the documents to which the objection purportedly applies or provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party to evaluate the objection. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1126.) Moreover, "[o]nce the objections [to production of privileged material] are timely asserted, the trial court may not deem them waived based on any deficiency in the

Page 6