| 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
- Gather intake inputs (Checkpoint A below)
- Confirm forum and any court-ordered format
- Normalize metadata and classify privilege basis per item
- Draft log entries using standard columns and safe description templates
- Flag waiver risks in a separate attorney-only section
- Run quality audit before delivery
Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake
Ask every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft":
- Discovery context — RFP set, request text, objections, ESI protocol/CMO/stipulation on format
- Document population — withheld and redacted items with stable IDs/Bates, family links, production status
- Metadata — date, author, recipients (TO/CC/BCC), doc type, subject/file name, custodian
- Roles list — name-to-role map (client, in-house, outside counsel, consultants, third parties)
- Privilege basis — ACP, WPD absolute, WPD qualified, common interest/joint defense (with proof)
- Litigation timeline — trigger facts for "anticipation of litigation" (work product)
- 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 |
