Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman
California Court of Appeal
55 Cal. App. 4th 1279, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698 (1997)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Steven Schectman and the Law Offices of Pinnock and Schectman (defendants) represented current and former employees in employment-discrimination cases against Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro (PM&S) (plaintiff). Someone took confidential personnel files from the offices of PM&S without consent and gave them to Schectman. PM&S sued to recover its files and for injunctive relief. A special master reviewed the documents and found none contained attorney-client-privileged communications, work product, or trade secrets. However, most of the documents involved communications within the human resources department about employees’ work performance, which PM&S intended to keep confidential. The court found PM&S owned the documents and that its employees understood they were confidential and concluded someone must have taken the documents from PM&S improperly such that Schectman possessed them wrongfully as that person’s agent. The court ordered Schectman to return the documents and any that came into his possession in the future. Schectman appealed and requested a stay pending appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lambden, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
