The respondent mother brought a motion for an order requiring the applicant child protection agency to disclose the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the agency, along with correspondence and retainer agreements.
The mother alleged she was being surveilled.
The agency relied on litigation privilege and did not file affidavit material.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that surveillance materials are protected by litigation privilege unless the agency intends to rely on them as evidence.
Since the agency had not listed any surveillance witnesses for trial, the surveillance was not part of the case the parents had to meet, and disclosure was not required.
