Court Opinion

ID: 9835869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:45:35.170375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:10.068368
License: Public Domain

LYNN, Chief District Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The question of whether to apply this Court’s holding in Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2014), should be analyzed against the backdrop of the claims pending in a lawsuit when the admission of the evidence is sought. In this case, only state law claims remained at the time Sony sought to admit evidence of the email exchange, in support of its motion for summary judgment. Because at that time the action no longer involved any federal issue, the evidence could not relate to a federal claim.
The district court thus correctly determined that state privilege law governed and that California Evidence Code § 1123(b) precluded admission of the email exchange, and the resulting settlement contract. Fair v. Bakktiari, 40 Cal.4th 189, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 871, 147 P.3d 653 (2006). For these reasons, I dissent.