California requires that interference with prospective economic advantage be accomplished by independently wrongful means -- not just competitive conduct. At deposition, defense counsel need to lock in that the defendant's competitive acts were lawful. Shows how to structure the deposition to establish the "no independently wrongful act" defense.

The Independently Wrongful Act That Tortious Interference Claims Must Have

Your client has been sued for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The plaintiff cannot point to a contract your client disrupted — only to a business relationship that might have materialized. That distinction is the difference between a claim that survives and one that gets knocked out at summary judgment, and the deposition is where you make the record.

The Deposition

What the Law Requires

California recognizes two interference torts with meaningfully different standards. For intentional interference with contractual relations, the plaintiff must show the defendant intentionally induced a third party to breach an existing contract. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126. For intentional interference with prospective economic advantage — where no contract existed yet — the plaintiff must show something more: that the defendant's conduct was independently wrongful, meaning wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1158.

That "independently wrongful" requirement is the claim's structural weakness when you are defending competitive conduct. Hard competition, aggressive pricing, and poaching prospective customers are not independently wrongful. The plaintiff must identify a specific legal wrong — fraud, defamation, violation of a statute, unfair business practice — that the defendant committed, independent of the interference itself.

Where the defendant acted with mixed motives — legitimate business purpose and a desire to harm the plaintiff — liability may still attach if the improper purpose predominates. The deposition is where motive gets pinned.

What the Corpus Shows

The corpus ruling on tortious interference (Dept 529) was decided on procedural grounds only — a two-day notice defect and separate statement violations — and provides no substantive element analysis. The doctrine-driven questions below are drawn from Pac. Gas & Elec. and Korea Supply directly.

What the corpus does confirm, across multiple cases, is the MSJ dynamic: if the plaintiff cannot identify a specific independently wrongful act in the deposition record, the IIPEA claim becomes vulnerable at summary judgment. The deposition is the plaintiff's opportunity to articulate that act — and the defendant's opportunity to make clear there is none.

What Counsel Does

If you are deposing the defendant in a tortious interference case:

"When did you first become aware of the relationship between [plaintiff] and [third party]?" Establish knowledge — a required element for both interference torts — and pin the date.
"How did you learn about that relationship?" The source may reveal documents you have not yet seen and may establish the knowledge element more precisely than testimony alone.
"After you learned about the relationship, did you contact [third party] about [the subject matter]?" This is the act of interference — get it on the record before the witness frames it as ordinary business activity.
"What was your purpose in contacting [third party]?" This is where motive surfaces. Most defendants will claim pure business purpose. Let them commit to that answer before you follow up.
"At the time you [took the interfering action], did you understand it might affect [plaintiff]'s relationship with [third party]?"
"What business reason, other than competing with [plaintiff], did you have for [specific act]?" Separate legitimate purpose from competitive advantage framing.
For IIPEA specifically: "What, if anything, did you do that you believe was legally wrongful — separate from the fact that you were competing with [plaintiff]?" Most witnesses cannot answer this question with a specific legal wrong. The non-answer is your summary judgment evidence.

If you are defending your client's deposition in a tortious interference case:

Prepare the witness to articulate a legitimate independent business purpose for every interfering act — one that stands on its own without reference to the plaintiff. "I wanted that customer's business" is not enough if the manner of taking it was improper.
Review all communications with the third party before the deposition. If any communication suggests awareness of — or intent to disrupt — the plaintiff's relationship, know it before you sit down.
Brief the witness on what "independently wrongful" means and doesn't mean. Aggressive competition is not independently wrongful. Making false statements about the plaintiff to the third party is. The witness should be prepared to explain why the conduct falls in the former category.
Pin down whether the defendant's conduct was directed at the third party or only at the plaintiff. If your client communicated exclusively with the plaintiff and not with the third party, the interference theory may be difficult for the plaintiff to sustain — get that testimony cleanly in the record.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. All frameworks and sample language should be reviewed by a licensed attorney and adapted to your particular client, case, and situation.