Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Deborah on 12/30/09
Time for a drink and snack...showtime!
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
> 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
> opinion in this matter, Kelman v. Kramer (2006) D047758,
> November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the question
> whether appellant's statements were privileged? The
> 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