Alexander] to their accountings establish that legal advice sought in that regard is and therefore personal to themselves and In doing so, the court ‘defensive’ privileged.” explained that to questions and objections by beneficiaries regarding a “responding accountings is at the very core of trust administration. And . . . if [appellants] fiduciary’s did not see that work as part of the administration at the time, surely they would Trust’s have done something to protect the privilege, as would any prudent fiduciary who felt the need to be appellants of the doubt . . . ‘defensive.’ ” Yet then, affording “every benefit which will allow [them] to withhold those documents which they now identify as protecting them from personal liability, specifically, the petitions for surcharge and/or the court upheld the privilege as to 45 documents on the removal,” [italics added] supplemental privilege log, while ordering them to deliver the balance of the documents to FTI by March 5, 2015. Following a hearing, the probate tentative ruling became a final order, after court’s which both parties filed timely notices of appeal. DISCUSSION Both parties appeal portions of the probate permitting appellants to court’s order withhold some, but not all, trust records claimed as privileged on the supplemental privilege log. Appellants, for their part, challenge as error the probate ruling to court’s sustain and objections as to all but 45 documents on the supplemental FTI’s Alexander’s privilege log (hereinafter, Privilege-Denied Documents). FTI and Alexander, in turn, challenge as error the probate ruling to uphold the privilege with respect to those court’s 45 documents on the log (hereinafter, Privilege-Upheld Documents). The legal framework for resolving this dispute is, for the most part, not in dispute. trial determination of a motion to compel discovery is reviewed for “A court’s abuse of discretion. [Citation.] An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard. [Citation.] However, when the facts asserted in support of and in opposition to the motion are in conflict, the trial factual findings will be court’s upheld if they are supported by Wholesale substantial evidence. [Citations.]” (Costco
Alexander] to their accountings establish that legal advice sought in that regard is ‘defensive’ and therefore personal to themselves and privileged.” In doing so, the court explained that “responding to questions and objections by beneficiaries regarding a fiduciary’s accountings is at the very core of trust administration. And . . . if [appellants] did not see that work as part of the Trust’s administration at the time, surely they would have done something to protect the privilege, as would any prudent fiduciary who felt the need to be ‘defensive.’ ” Yet then, affording appellants “every benefit of the doubt . . . which will allow [them] to withhold those documents which they now identify as protecting them from personal liability, specifically, the petitions for surcharge and/or removal,” [italics added] the court upheld the privilege as to 45 documents on the supplemental privilege log, while ordering them to deliver the balance of the documents to FTI by March 5, 2015. Following a hearing, the probate court’s tentative ruling became a final order, after which both parties filed timely notices of appeal. DISCUSSION Both parties appeal portions of the probate court’s order permitting appellants to withhold some, but not all, trust records claimed as privileged on the supplemental privilege log. Appellants, for their part, challenge as error the probate court’s ruling to sustain FTI’s and Alexander’s objections as to all but 45 documents on the supplemental privilege log (hereinafter, Privilege-Denied Documents). FTI and Alexander, in turn, challenge as error the probate court’s ruling to uphold the privilege with respect to those 45 documents on the log (hereinafter, Privilege-Upheld Documents). The legal framework for resolving this dispute is, for the most part, not in dispute. “A trial court’s determination of a motion to compel discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard. [Citation.] However, when the facts asserted in support of and in opposition to the motion are in conflict, the trial court’s factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]” (Costco Wholesale
A144558.DOCX