Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)

Citation
Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Parent Document
Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2007-08-02

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text

1,605 chars
While the Legislature remains free to create exceptions to the litigation privilege, for parties to the underlying litigation and others, we decline to recognize a broad exception to the litigation privilege for any party who did not participate in the underlying litigation. An exception to the litigation privilege for all suits brought by parties who were not involved in the underlying litigation would be antithetical to the privilege’s purposes. The *1248litigation privilege “has been referred to as ‘the backbone to an effective and smoothly operating judicial system.’ ” (Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 214-215, quoting McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 961, 970 [234 Cal.Rptr. 702].) It “promotes the effectiveness of judicial proceedings by encouraging ‘open channels of communication and the presentation of evidence’ in judicial proceedings.” (Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 213.) We have observed that an “ ‘external threat of liability is destructive of [the] fundamental right [of access to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings] and inconsistent with the effective administration of justice.’ ” {Ibid.) The litigation privilege is meant to protect more than the parties to a lawsuit from derivative suits that they might later bring against each other. Derivative litigation brought by parties who did not participate in the underlying litigation, like litigation brought by parties who did participate, would pose an external threat of liability that would deter potential litigants, witnesses, and others from participating in judicial proceedings.