Tehama County did not have to disclose publicly advice it received from an outside law firm on how to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act while dealing with a controversial development project, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the four documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product privilege, even though Tehama County shared the documents with the project's developer.
The state attorney general cannot recover fees under the Code of Civil Procedure's "private attorney general" provision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled in a Tehama County case involving the Subdivision Map Act and the Williamson Act.
