III. WRIT PROCEEDINGS, NOS. A063427 AND A063547

   The Discovery Order Must Be Vacated and Remanded for "Reconsideration"
by the Arbitrator.

     The trial court granted the Engallas' motion to compel production of
portions of fourteen documents which, it believed, fell within the
"crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege. The trial court
also rejected the Engallas' claim that Kaiser had "waived" any
attorney-client privilege or work product protections for a number of
additional documents by partial disclosure of their contents. The trial
court's discovery rulings were made, in part, before and, in part, after
finding fraud in both the "inducement" and in the "specific application" of
the arbitration provision.

     In light of our conclusion that the trial court erred by refusing
enforcement of the arbitration provision, the trial court's discovery order
cannot stand, at least not in its present form.
     Just as the parties agreed that the instant claims must be submitted to
an arbitrator in a proceeding governed by the California Code of Civil
Procedure, so did they agree that their discovery disputes would be entrusted
to the arbitrator for resolution.
     (@ 1283.1, 1238.05; and see
      Titan, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 488; 
      Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra,
      10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802, fn. 10.) 
     We, therefore, conclude that the discovery matter must be "reconsidered"
by the arbitrator to determine whether the documents respondents are seeking
are subject to disclosure either under the "crime-fraud" exception or because
of "waiver" by partial disclosure.
     The arbitrator must also determine whether the documents are relevant,
not to the issue of enforceability of the arbitration clause, but to the
Engallas' substantive claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and abuse of process.