ca-privilege-log

name	ca-privilege-log
language	en
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.

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

1. Gather intake inputs (Checkpoint A below)
2. Confirm forum and any court-ordered format
3. Normalize metadata and classify privilege basis per item
4. Draft log entries using standard columns and safe description templates
5. Flag waiver risks in a separate attorney-only section
6. Run quality audit before delivery

Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake

Ask every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft":

1. Discovery context — RFP set, request text, objections, ESI protocol/CMO/stipulation on format
2. Document population — withheld and redacted items with stable IDs/Bates, family links, production status
3. Metadata — date, author, recipients (TO/CC/BCC), doc type, subject/file name, custodian
4. Roles list — name-to-role map (client, in-house, outside counsel, consultants, third parties)
5. Privilege basis — ACP, WPD absolute, WPD qualified, common interest/joint defense (with proof)
6. Litigation timeline — trigger facts for "anticipation of litigation" (work product)
7. 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	Evid. Code §§ 952, 954
Work Product – Absolute	Attorney impressions, opinions, legal research, theories	CCP § 2018.030(a)
Work Product – Qualified	Other attorney work product	CCP § 2018.030(b)
Joint Defense / Common Interest	Shared legal strategy with aligned parties	Require agreement [VERIFY]

Do not over-assert both ACP and WPD without factual support for each.

Step 4: Draft Log Entries

Required Columns

Column	Required	Notes
Entry ID / Bates	Yes	Unique per document or family item
Date	Yes	"Undated" if unknown
Document Type	Yes	Email, memo, draft, notes, etc.
Author (Name + Role)	Yes	Use role mapping
Recipients TO (Name + Role)	Yes	Separate TO/CC/BCC
Recipients CC/BCC	If any	Include third parties explicitly
Description	Yes	Functional, non-substantive
Privilege Basis	Yes	ACP, WPD-Abs, WPD-Qual, or combined
Legal Authority	Yes	Cite relevant statutes
Production Status	Yes	Withheld or Redacted
RFP / Request No.	If tracked	Link to request
Notes	Optional	Family/attachment links, redaction note

Safe Description Templates

Confidential email between [Client Role] and [Counsel Role] requesting or providing legal advice regarding [high-level issue]; withheld under attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code §§ 952, 954).

Internal memorandum prepared by [Counsel Role] at counsel's direction in anticipation of litigation regarding [high-level issue], reflecting counsel's impressions and legal theories; withheld as work product—absolute (CCP § 2018.030(a)).

Draft [document type] prepared for attorney review and legal advice concerning [high-level issue]; produced with redactions for privileged portions; redactions based on attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code §§ 952, 954).

Description Checklist

• Identify document type and general purpose
• Identify roles of participants (client, in-house, outside counsel)
• State legal purpose at high level (request/provision of legal advice; prepared for litigation)
• Avoid quoting privileged subject lines or legal theories
• Specify redacted vs. withheld

Step 5: Flag Waiver and Risk Issues

Generate a separate attorney-only review section (non-produced):

• Third-party recipient present → confirm necessity under Evid. Code § 952
• Forwarded to non-legal distribution list → assess waiver under Evid. Code § 912
• Mixed business/legal purpose → confirm dominant purpose (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 [VERIFY])
• Work product claimed before litigation trigger → confirm timeline
• Expert involvement → confirm designation and potential waiver

Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Review

After delivering the initial log, ask:

1. Are role assignments accurate for all participants?
2. Any entries needing privilege basis reconsideration (e.g., mixed business/legal)?
3. Should any withheld documents be redacted instead of fully withheld?
4. Does the format match any court order or stipulation?

If no response, recommend reviewing waiver-risk flags first and proceed if authorized.

Quality Audit

Before finalizing, verify:

• Every entry has a unique ID/Bates number
• All participants mapped to roles consistently
• Descriptions specific enough under Hernandez [VERIFY] without revealing substance
• Privilege basis supported by facts, not boilerplate
• Redacted vs. withheld correctly designated per entry
• Attachments treated as separate entries (unless protocol allows grouping)
• No privileged subject lines, legal theories, or settlement positions exposed
• Waiver risks flagged in attorney-only section
• All statutory citations verified or marked [VERIFY]
• Format matches any applicable court order or ESI protocol

Pitfalls

• Never invent metadata, roles, or privilege bases — stop and request missing inputs
• Never expose privileged substance, legal strategy, or settlement positions
• Prefer redactions over complete withholding when only part is privileged
• Consistency matters — inconsistent naming/formatting signals weakness to opposing counsel
• Burden framework — apply Wellpoint Health Networks v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110 [VERIFY]
• Anti-hallucination — all case citations must be verified or flagged [VERIFY]; never generate unverified case law
• Attorney review required — all output must be reviewed by supervising counsel before service; comply with Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 3.3 [VERIFY]

---

Key changes from the original:

• Frontmatter: Removed non-spec tags field; tightened description while keeping all trigger keywords
• Removed "Why This Skill Exists": Replaced verbose rationale paragraph with a 2-sentence overview that conveys the same standard
• Added Quick Start: 6-step numbered workflow at the top for fast orientation
• Removed CSV header template: Claude already knows CSV format — the column table is sufficient
• Streamlined Checkpoint B: Shortened heading and trimmed wording without losing the four review questions
• Merged Guidelines into Pitfalls: Consolidated the separate "Guidelines" section into a compact bullet list, eliminating duplicate guidance (e.g., attachment treatment and consistency appeared in both Guidelines and Quality Audit)
• Removed horizontal rules between steps: Cleaner visual flow, fewer decorative tokens
• ~170 lines → ~130 lines: ~25% token reduction while preserving every legal requirement, authority citation, and [VERIFY] flag