Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Cal. Evid. Code § 919

General Provisions Relating to Privileges

Applied in 3 court decisions — leading case 115 Cal. App. 3d 386 - Schlumberger Limited v. Superior Court (1981)

Most recently applied in 226 Cal. App. 4th 1530 - Regents of University of California v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (May 2014)

Amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 227.

How often courts cite this section

19751980199020002010201410
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(a) Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged information is inadmissible against a holder of the privilege if:

(1) A person authorized to claim the privilege claimed it but nevertheless disclosure erroneously was required to be made; or

(2) The presiding officer did not exclude the privileged information as required by Section 916.

(b) If a person authorized to claim the privilege claimed it, whether in the same or a prior proceeding, but nevertheless disclosure erroneously was required by the presiding officer to be made, neither the failure to refuse to disclose nor the failure to seek review of the order of the presiding officer requiring disclosure indicates consent to the disclosure or constitutes a waiver and, under these circumstances, the disclosure is one made under coercion.

Official source: California Legislative Information. Reproduced from public-domain California statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.