• PRO
  • Events
  • About Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Q&A
    • In-depth
    • In-house view
    • Practical resources
    • FromCounsel New
    • Commentary
  • Research tools
    • Global research hub
    • Lexy
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner
    • Research reports
  • Resources
  • Research tools
  • Learn
    • All
    • Webinars
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Experts
    • Find experts
    • Influencers
    • Client Choice New
    • Firms
    • About
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Experts
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Find experts
  • Influencers
  • Client Choice New
  • Firms
  • About
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Home

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

California law requires all parties' consent to recording of communications

Baker McKenzie

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

USA February 13 2017

The Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. confirmed on January 18, 2017 in the case Safari Club International v. Dr. Lawrence Rudolph (17 C.D.O.S. 427) that anyone recording confidential communications must obtain consent from all parties in California under Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 et seq. The court rejected arguments that "as a matter of law there can be no objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality because the conversation occurred in a place that was open to the public. That contention is at odds with California authority viewing privacy as relative." In the case at hand, a conversation between executives of the Safari Club International discussed a dispute over lunch in Los Angeles, one considering the conversation confidential and the other one recording the conversation. California communications privacy laws apply also to companies and persons residing in other states or countries, see Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 95 and its consent requirements extend to other forms of electronic communications, including e-mail, SMS, web access and video recordings, for more detail see Lothar Determann, California Privacy Law - Practical Guide and Commentary, 2nd Ed. 2017, pp. 270 et. seq. (Ch. 2-24). For more information, please contact Teresa Michaud, David Callaway or Lothar Determann.

Content is provided for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. For more information, please visit: www.bakermckenzie.com/en/client-resource-disclaimer.


Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • IT & Data Protection
  • Litigation
  • Baker McKenzie

Topics

  • Confidentiality
  • Information privacy

Courts

  • Ninth Circuit

Popular articles from this firm

  1. 144A vs REG S Only- considerations in high yield offerings *
  2. International: Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Update — Broad relief may be available upon recognition without establishing COMI in the jurisdiction of the foreign proceeding *
  3. Amendments to PH Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence Take Effect on 1 May 2020 *
  4. Think Twice Before Changing your ESPP Mid-Offering *
  5. United States: The evolving securities legal framework of ESG issues *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • Checklist Checklist: When and how to appoint a data protection officer (UK)
  • Checklist Checklist: Data subject access rights under the GDPR (UK)
  • Checklist Checklist: What to include in your organisation’s privacy notice (UK)

Related research hubs

  • USA
  • IT & Data Protection
  • Litigation
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
Experts
  • Find experts
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • About Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2022 Law Business Research

Law Business Research