Filed 1/29/01
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
|
CHARLES F. MAGILL et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF MADERA ET AL., Respondents, THE PEOPLE ex rel. Bill Lockyer, as Attorney General, etc., Real Party in Interest. |
F035276m (Super. Ct. No. 1289 & 1290)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 10, 2001, be modified as follows:
Following the end of the last sentence of the last full paragraph on page 53, add the following footnote:
In support of a petition for rehearing, Stebens has submitted a new declaration in which he declares that he took the photographs of the vehicle under John Doe's "direction," and the photographs thus constitute privileged communications to Magill. Stebens has previously failed to make such a factual assertion, even though he testified at the trial court's hearing and submitted declarations in the instant mandamus proceeding, and petitioners have not explained their prior failure to present such informaiton to the court. (See, e.g., Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 317; People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 1004.) In any event, we are not called upon to determine whether such conduct, even if it occurred, might have constituted a communication within the meaning of the attorney-client privilege.
Petitioners' "Petition for Rehearing" in the above-entitled matter is denied. This modification does not affect the judgment.
_________________________
Ardaiz, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
Harris, J.
____________________________________
Levy, J.