The interim adverse judgment rule did not prevent this malicious prosecution action because the maliciious prosecution defendant had engineered a denial of the defense summary judgment motion in the underlying action by withholding of a critical piece of evidence in willful violation of multiple court orders–which had it been produced would have resulted in summary judgment being awarded.  The withheld document showed that the malicious prosecution defendant’s transactional attorney had a document showing that he had knowledge of the facts that the malicious prosecution defendant had claimed the malicious prosecution plaintiff had fraudulently concealed in selling his winery to the malicious prosecution defendant.  The transactional attorney’s knowledge was properly imputed to the malicious prosecution defendant for purposes of determining whether it had probable cause to bring the underlying lawsuit.