Ramiro and Tammy Estrada appeal a discovery order permitting the State to obtain a videotape Tammy made. The videotape depicts Tammy interviewing a minor, S.J., who alleged that Ramiro had sexual contact with her. The Estradas contend that the tape is privileged as an attorney-client communication and attorney work product and therefore not subject to discovery. We reject these contentions because the communication was made in a third party's presence and therefore not confidential, and the Estradas have failed to show that counsel directed the interview be conducted or adopted the videotape as his own work product. Accordingly, we affirm the order.
Tammy provides in-home day care.
S.J.'s mother told Tammy that Ramiro had sexually touched S.J. during day care. Tammy discussed the matter with Ramiro, and they decided to call their attorney, who told Tammy that it would be helpful to know more about the allegations. S.J. Tammy gave the videotape to her attorney the next day. 1 and the Estradas responded by moving to quash on grounds that the videotape was privileged as attorney-client communication and attorney work product. After reviewing the videotape in camera, the circuit court denied the motion to quash, finding first that it was not a confidential attorney-client communication.