--- name: ca-privilege-log title: California Privilege Log description: Generates California-compliant privilege logs for withheld or redacted discovery materials under CCP 2031.240. Use when the user mentions privilege log drafting, California privilege log, CCP 2031.240, attorney-client privilege logging, work product designation, Evid. Code 952/954, CCP 2018.030, redaction logging, meet-and-confer privilege disputes, waiver analysis, common interest doctrine, or asks for help documenting withheld documents. Also trigger on references to Hernandez v. Superior Court, Costco Wholesale, or Wellpoint. author: CaseMark author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/ca-privilege-log license: Apache-2.0 version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: us practice: litigation language: en --- # California Privilege Log Produces defensible privilege logs meeting *Hernandez v. Superior Court* (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285 [VERIFY] specificity requirements — descriptions sufficient to assess the privilege without revealing privileged substance. Outputs consistent formatting, proper authority citations, and attorney-review flags for waiver risks. ## Quick Start 1. Gather intake inputs (Checkpoint A below) 2. Confirm forum and any court-ordered format 3. Normalize metadata and classify privilege basis per item 4. Draft log entries using standard columns and safe description templates 5. Flag waiver risks in a separate attorney-only section 6. Run quality audit before delivery ## Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake Ask every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft": 1. **Discovery context** — RFP set, request text, objections, ESI protocol/CMO/stipulation on format 2. **Document population** — withheld and redacted items with stable IDs/Bates, family links, production status 3. **Metadata** — date, author, recipients (TO/CC/BCC), doc type, subject/file name, custodian 4. **Roles list** — name-to-role map (client, in-house, outside counsel, consultants, third parties) 5. **Privilege basis** — ACP, WPD absolute, WPD qualified, common interest/joint defense (with proof) 6. **Litigation timeline** — trigger facts for "anticipation of litigation" (work product) 7. **Waiver risks** — third-party dissemination, mixed business/legal comms, forwarded chains **Defaults** (if no response): California state court; attorney-client privilege basis; withheld (not redacted); standard column format. Label defaults clearly. ## Step 1: Confirm Forum and Governing Standard California state court vs. federal — adapt only if an order or stipulation controls. Identify any court-specific or CMO-mandated format requirements. If federal, adapt to FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) while keeping California privilege elements. ## Step 2: Normalize Metadata Ensure consistent names, roles, dates, and family relationships across all entries. Split attachments as separate entries unless the protocol allows categorical treatment. ## Step 3: Classify Privilege Basis | Label | Use When | Authority | |---|---|---| | Attorney-Client Privilege | Confidential client-lawyer communication for legal advice | Evid. Code §§ 952, 954 | | Work Product – Absolute | Attorney impressions, opinions, legal research, theories | CCP § 2018.030(a) | | Work Product – Qualified | Other attorney work product | CCP § 2018.030(b) | | Joint Defense / Common Interest | Shared legal strategy with aligned parties | Require agreement [VERIFY] | Do not over-assert both ACP and WPD without factual support for each. ## Step 4: Draft Log Entries ### Required Columns | Column | Required | Notes | |---|---|---| | Entry ID / Bates | Yes | Unique per document or family item | | Date | Yes | "Undated" if unknown | | Document Type | Yes | Email, memo, draft, notes, etc. | | Author (Name + Role) | Yes | Use role mapping | | Recipients TO (Name + Role) | Yes | Separate TO/CC/BCC | | Recipients CC/BCC | If any | Include third parties explicitly | | Description | Yes | Functional, non-substantive | | Privilege Basis | Yes | ACP, WPD-Abs, WPD-Qual, or combined | | Legal Authority | Yes | Cite relevant statutes | | Production Status | Yes | Withheld or Redacted | | RFP / Request No. | If tracked | Link to request | | Notes | Optional | Family/attachment links, redaction note | ### Safe Description Templates ```text Confidential email between [Client Role] and [Counsel Role] requesting or providing legal advice regarding [high-level issue]; withheld under attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code §§ 952, 954). Internal memorandum prepared by [Counsel Role] at counsel's direction in anticipation of litigation regarding [high-level issue], reflecting counsel's impressions and legal theories; withheld as work product—absolute (CCP § 2018.030(a)). Draft [document type] prepared for attorney review and legal advice concerning [high-level issue]; produced with redactions for privileged portions; redactions based on attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code §§ 952, 954). ``` ### Description Checklist - [ ] Identify document type and general purpose - [ ] Identify roles of participants (client, in-house, outside counsel) - [ ] State legal purpose at high level (request/provision of legal advice; prepared for litigation) - [ ] Avoid quoting privileged subject lines or legal theories - [ ] Specify redacted vs. withheld ## Step 5: Flag Waiver and Risk Issues Generate a separate **attorney-only** review section (non-produced): - Third-party recipient present → confirm necessity under Evid. Code § 952 - Forwarded to non-legal distribution list → assess waiver under Evid. Code § 912 - Mixed business/legal purpose → confirm dominant purpose (*Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court* (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 [VERIFY]) - Work product claimed before litigation trigger → confirm timeline - Expert involvement → confirm designation and potential waiver ## Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Review After delivering the initial log, ask: 1. Are role assignments accurate for all participants? 2. Any entries needing privilege basis reconsideration (e.g., mixed business/legal)? 3. Should any withheld documents be redacted instead of fully withheld? 4. Does the format match any court order or stipulation? If no response, recommend reviewing waiver-risk flags first and proceed if authorized. ## Quality Audit Before finalizing, verify: - [ ] Every entry has a unique ID/Bates number - [ ] All participants mapped to roles consistently - [ ] Descriptions specific enough under *Hernandez* [VERIFY] without revealing substance - [ ] Privilege basis supported by facts, not boilerplate - [ ] Redacted vs. withheld correctly designated per entry - [ ] Attachments treated as separate entries (unless protocol allows grouping) - [ ] No privileged subject lines, legal theories, or settlement positions exposed - [ ] Waiver risks flagged in attorney-only section - [ ] All statutory citations verified or marked `[VERIFY]` - [ ] Format matches any applicable court order or ESI protocol ## Pitfalls - **Never invent** metadata, roles, or privilege bases — stop and request missing inputs - **Never expose** privileged substance, legal strategy, or settlement positions - **Prefer redactions** over complete withholding when only part is privileged - **Consistency matters** — inconsistent naming/formatting signals weakness to opposing counsel - **Burden framework** — apply *Wellpoint Health Networks v. Superior Court* (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110 [VERIFY] - **Anti-hallucination** — all case citations must be verified or flagged `[VERIFY]`; never generate unverified case law - **Attorney review required** — all output must be reviewed by supervising counsel before service; comply with Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 3.3 [VERIFY] --- **Key changes from the original:** - **Frontmatter**: Removed non-spec `tags` field; tightened `description` while keeping all trigger keywords - **Removed "Why This Skill Exists"**: Replaced verbose rationale paragraph with a 2-sentence overview that conveys the same standard - **Added Quick Start**: 6-step numbered workflow at the top for fast orientation - **Removed CSV header template**: Claude already knows CSV format — the column table is sufficient - **Streamlined Checkpoint B**: Shortened heading and trimmed wording without losing the four review questions - **Merged Guidelines into Pitfalls**: Consolidated the separate "Guidelines" section into a compact bullet list, eliminating duplicate guidance (e.g., attachment treatment and consistency appeared in both Guidelines and Quality Audit) - **Removed horizontal rules between steps**: Cleaner visual flow, fewer decorative tokens - **~170 lines → ~130 lines**: ~25% token reduction while preserving every legal requirement, authority citation, and `[VERIFY]` flag