A court shall determine in closed chambers the relevance of requested access to records of complaints about peace/custodial officers, specifying exclusions from disclosure and that records may not be used for other purposes (191 Cal.App.3d 693: personnel files of police officers being sued for use of unreasonable force in making arrest should have been excised to exclude medical records and other sensitive and personal material which are not relevant).
The presiding officer shall exclude information that is subject to a claim of privilege if:(1) the person from whom the information is sought is not a person authorized to claim the privilege; and (2) there is no party to the proceeding who is a person authorized to claim the privilege. The presiding officer may not exclude information if (1) he is instructed by a person authorized to permit disclosure; or (2) the proponent of the evidence establishes that there is no person authorized to claim the privilege in existence.
Disclosure or statement of privileged information is inadmissible as evidence against a holder of privilege if the person claimed privilege but disclosure was erroneously required or the presiding officer did not exclude the privileged information.
The section defines confidential communications between client and lawyer. (Within the scope of attorney-client privilege are physician reports created at the instigation of a client's lawyer. 58 Cal.2d 56.)
There is no Physician-Patient Privilege if communications are relevant to issue of intention of patient, now deceased, with respect to a deed of conveyance, will, or other writing, executed by the patient, purporting to affect an interest in property.