Posted by Sharon on 12/30/09

More | Report Post

Here you go, legal geniuses. Get your minds around this
one.

12/29/2009 Order filed. In reviewing the briefs and
record on appeal, the following questions have arisen: In
her motion for summary judgment, defendant and appellant
Sharon Kramer appears to have argued that her description
of plaintiff and respondent Bruce J. Kelman's testimony in
the Haynes trial as "altered" was privileged and entitled
her to judgment as a matter of law. 1. Was Kramer's
description of Kelman's testimony privileged? (See Reader's
Digest Assn v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 262-
264, and Paterno v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th
1342, 1355-1357.) 2. Does anything in our prior unpublished
opinion in this matter, Kelman v. Kramer (2006) D047758,
November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the question of
whether appellant's statements were privileged? The parties
are directed to respond this question by letter brief
within 30 days of the date of this order. The order of
November 30, 2009, setting this case on calendar on
Wednesday, January 13, 2010, for oral argument is vacated.
The case will be recalendared upon receipt of the parties'
letter briefs. The clerk of the court will notify all
parties of the new date and time.

http://www.blip.tv/file/2878576/

Black Mold Claims Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST