Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Mike B. on 12/30/09
Sounds like they want to rule that your statements were NOT
privileged, but want to make certain they are procedurally on
solid ground. Hence, the question presented: "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in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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
Didn't you get rid of your lawyers some time back? What are
you going to tell the appeal court....."Yes, you can answer
that question because I know Henry Waxman"?
On 12/30/09, Sharon wrote:
> Here you go, legal geniuses. Get your minds around this
> 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished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.
Posts on this thread, including this one