team. While it is no doubt true that Valla was engaged in investigating the facts of misconduct and crafting a trial strategy, it undertook these tasks on behalf of defendant’s its corporate client, IAR, in its role as attorney in the civil lawsuit brought by plaintiff’s IAR against its former employee. The fact that these tasks sometimes overlapped with the district efforts to prosecute defendant, and that Valla cooperated with the attorney’s district attorney in its efforts to uncover the truth about wrongdoing, does defendant’s not, without more, make them for purposes of (Cf. Brady. People v. “team members” 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1479-1481 [holding that a SART examiner was part Uribe, supra, of the prosecution team was clearly spearheaded by the a where “[the exam] police,” purpose of the examination was to determine whether the allegation could be “major corroborated with physical findings [that the victim had been the sexually abused],” examiner and preserved physical evidence, consistent with “collected statutory protocol,” and to her practice after completion of the SART examination and after “according — she and Dr. Kerns reach concurrence as to their findings as contained in the written report [the examiner] provided a copy of the forensic report to the — police”].) Accordingly, we conclude the trial was rendered in error and must be court’s order reversed. DISPOSITION A peremptory writ of mandate is entered directing the trial court to set aside and vacate its order of February 8, 2016, with the instruction to enter a new order finding that petitioner Valla & Associates is not part of the prosecution team in this case for purposes of (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87. Brady v. Maryland _________________________ Jenkins, J. We concur: _________________________
team. While it is no doubt true that Valla was engaged in investigating the facts of defendant’s misconduct and crafting a trial strategy, it undertook these tasks on behalf of its corporate client, IAR, in its role as plaintiff’s attorney in the civil lawsuit brought by IAR against its former employee. The fact that these tasks sometimes overlapped with the district attorney’s efforts to prosecute defendant, and that Valla cooperated with the district attorney in its efforts to uncover the truth about defendant’s wrongdoing, does not, without more, make them “team members” for purposes of Brady. (Cf. People v. Uribe, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1479-1481 [holding that a SART examiner was part of the prosecution team where “[the exam] was clearly spearheaded by the police,” a “major purpose of the examination was to determine whether the allegation could be corroborated with physical findings [that the victim had been sexually abused],” the examiner “collected and preserved physical evidence, consistent with statutory protocol,” and “according to her practice — after completion of the SART examination and after she and Dr. Kerns reach concurrence as to their findings as contained in the written report — [the examiner] provided a copy of the forensic report to the police”].) Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s order was rendered in error and must be reversed. DISPOSITION A peremptory writ of mandate is entered directing the trial court to set aside and vacate its order of February 8, 2016, with the instruction to enter a new order finding that petitioner Valla & Associates is not part of the prosecution team in this case for purposes of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87. _________________________ Jenkins, J. We concur: _________________________
A149087M.DOCX