California · Evidence Code

EVID §919: (a) Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged information is inadmissible against a holder of the privilege if: (1) A person authorized to claim the privilege claimed it but neverthele

What this law says, in plain English

Evidence of privileged information statements is inadmissible against a privilege holder when an authorized person claims the privilege, even if they do so belatedly.

Read the full statutory text

(a) Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged information is inadmissible against a holder of the privilege if: (1) A person authorized to claim the privilege claimed it but nevertheless disclosure erroneously was required to be made; or (2) The presiding officer did not exclude the privileged information as required by Section 916. (b) If a person authorized to claim the privilege claimed it, whether in the same or a prior proceeding, but nevertheless disclosure erroneously was required by the presiding officer to be made, neither the failure to refuse to disclose nor the failure to seek review of the order of the presiding officer requiring disclosure indicates consent to the disclosure or constitutes a waiver and, under these circumstances, the disclosure is one made under coercion.

Verify at the official source: California legislative text

Facing this? Know exactly what happens next.

MOFRD turns this code section into your situation: the deadlines that apply to you, the forms your county uses, and the resolution paths people in your position actually take. Free for 3 days — no card required.

Start your matter free Ask Law Link about this code

This page is legal information, not legal advice. Code text is sourced from official publications and may lag amendments — always confirm at the official source linked above. Plain-English summaries and relationship data are AI-derived and reviewed on an ongoing basis; verify with a licensed attorney before acting.