Thomas E. Spahn | McGuireWoods
In Kachelev. El-Maasri, Case No. 25-cv-3458-AGS-MMP, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15935 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026), a dentist sued his landlord pro se and sought to block the landlord’s discovery of his communications with his dental office employees. Dealing only with attorney-client privilege, the court quickly denied the plaintiff’s motion — noting that “plaintiff is a non-attorney representing himself pro se and has not represented his dental practice [as] counsel.” Id. at *11.
Not surprisingly, the pro se plaintiff apparently didn’t think of claiming work product protection — which on its face can protect “documents and tangible things that are prepared . . . by or for another party” — if they satisfy the litigation-related motivational element. Courts that read the work product rule understand that even someone who has never met a lawyer can create protected work product in such circumstances.
Some courts give pro se litigants a break, reminding them of some legal or procedural advantage they are overlooking. That didn’t happen here — perhaps because even courts often overlook the work product rule’s expansive protection. Next week’s Privilege Point describes such an example.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.