What is the current state of the law on in-camera privilege?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rademan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 283 (Cal. App. 2001):
66.But see discussion in Poulin, The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege After Jaffee v. Redmond: Where Do We Go From Here? (1998) 76 Wash. U. L. Quarterly 1341, 1405-1407 [arguing trial courts should not resort to in camera review unless information essential to the ruling can be found only in the allegedly privileged records and the party seeking access makes an initial showing an exception applies].
66.But see discussion in Poulin, The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege After Jaffee v. Redmond: Where Do We Go From Here? (1998) 76 Wash. U. L. Quarterly 1341, 1405-1407 [arguing trial courts should not resort to in camera review unless information essential to the ruling can be found only in the allegedly privileged records and the party seeking access makes an initial showing an exception applies].
67.Evid. Code, 405; Holm v. Superior Court (1954) 42 Cal.2d 500, 507 ["In any given situation it is necessary that a determination be made concerning the facts asserted as a basis for the privilege. This determination is for the trial court in the first instance."].
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
