NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

CODRINGTON, Acting P. J.

INTRODUCTION

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real parties in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

With respect to the order for production of materials in petitioner's possession as to which no claim of privilege could be made by any party or person, the petition for writ of mandate is denied insofar as it seeks relief related to such materials.

However, concerning documents that were obtained from the United States as a matter of compelled criminal discovery, the problem is that real parties in interest did not seek them from the source. Although petitioner purports to raise various privileges, he has no personal familiarity with the preparation of the documents. He is not qualified to express any opinion as to whether the documents are privileged, or should remain privileged, and he is not qualified to set forth any reasons in fact why disclosure would be against the public interest. The federal government is the party with an interest in making these explanations and arguments, and real parties in interest cannot subvert the government's right to protect the documents by attempting to obtain them from a third party who acquired them as a matter of compelled discovery.

Accordingly, the trial court should not have ordered petitioner to disclose the documents received from the federal government as to which any privilege could possibly attach or as to which public disclosure could conceivably be against the public interest. Instead, real parties in interest should direct their inquiries or demands directly to the United States Attorney's Office. Although real parties in interest suggest that the United States Attorney would not object to the release of the documents, that is a decision that must be made directly by the United States Attorney and not by insinuation or at second hand.

DISPOSITION

The petition for writ of mandate is granted in part and denied in part. With respect to the order for production of materials in petitioner's possession, the petition for writ of mandate is denied. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted as follows:

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order directing petitioner to release all documents received from the federal government as criminal discovery; to tailor its order for disclosure as set forth above; and in all other respects to deny the motion without prejudice to real parties in interest's seeking disclosure directly from the federal government.

In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs. The previously ordered stay is lifted.

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

We concur:

McKINSTER, J.

RICHLI, J.