How must an attorney preserve confidential information?

Useful Rulings on Confidential Information

Recent Rulings on Confidential Information

1-25 of 10000 results

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Further, the Cross-Complainant asks for attorney fees but only submits a declaration that states it "has incurred $139,945.05 in legal fees and costs to pursue its claims" without any proof or breakdown of the fees. On the other hand, the FACC and the Cross-Complainant's additional declarations state that the request is based upon the terms of the parties' agreement that provides for recovery of reasonable attorney fees.

  • Hearing

FALISHA PORTER VS PHARMAVITE, LLC

There is no information about when plaintiff worked for the City of Pasadena. For instance, was it 15 years ago or immediately before Pharmavite’s hire? Defendant does not claim that plaintiff was terminated for cause. Or that she was terminated at all. Also, it is unclear how employment with the City of Pasadena for some unspecified time prior to her employment with Pharmavite is relevant. It is defendant’s burden of establishing good cause for how these records relate to its specific defenses.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST

Verified declaration by petitioner to include Attachment 14 to Confidential Conservator Screening Form GC-314 6. Order Appointing Probate Conservator Form GC-340 (adopted 1-15-16) The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Court Investigator’s Report 2. Mabel Bettcourt to appear or doctor’s declaration stating inability to appear or waiver by counsel upon appointment 3. Attorney appointed (MNCD) 4.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ALLSTATE SETTLEMENT CORPORATION VS J. E.

Insurance Code § 10139 requires that petitioner file the transfer agreement, disclosure, and other documents with the Office of the Attorney General.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Attorney Ryan Yabko (“Yabko”) states that “[p]ursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1362(c), this Motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure 284(c) instead of Code of Civil Procedure 284(1) because there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BETTY SCHILLING, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Feuer’s 2013 campaign for Los Angeles City Attorney on or about May 30, 2012. Judge Goorvitch has no personal relationship with Mr. Feuer and has had no communications with Mr. Feuer since he became the City Attorney. The Court can be fair and impartial in this matter. Background Plaintiffs Betty Schilling and William Schilling filed this action against the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and LAPD Officer Jason Jacobson following a motor vehicle collision.

  • Hearing

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

FCA interposed numerous boilerplate objections including relevancy, burden, and attorney-client privilege. FCA, however, agreed to produce a PMK for some categories. The Court finds minimal validity to FCA’s objections.

  • Hearing

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The Court finds that Defendant sufficiently establishes that the information to be sealed in the FAC relates to confidential and trade secret information relating to Defendant’s customer names, details of contracts, pricing, financial information and product information. The proposed redacted FAC is narrowly tailored, as it only redacts specific confidential and trade secret information of Defendant.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

GM interposed numerous boilerplate objections including relevancy, burden, and attorney-client privilege. GM, however, agreed to produce a PMK for some categories.

  • Hearing

HAROULA SPYROPOULOUS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

Plaintiffs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation after becoming aware of an injury, and are charged with knowledge of the information that would have been revealed by such an investigation. (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to invoke the delayed discovery rule. The complaint does not allege facts showing: (1) reasonable diligence by Plaintiff; or (2) a reasonable investigation to discover the cause of the damage to the Property.

  • Hearing

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 482, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225 [“ ‘[t]he duty to disclose may arise without any confidential relationship where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff’ ”].)” (Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1199.)

  • Hearing

FENGXIA HUAI VS CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

CIRC contends that the subject subpoena is overbroad, privileged, violative of third party privacy rights and seeks irrelevant information, to the extent that it requests bank records which contain the names and deposit information of other EB-5 investors. The court notes, as per the communications attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel Jason J.L. Yang (“Yang”), that the parties appeared to have resolved this matter.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REBECCA TOM V. KURT JAMES TOM

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff argues that the discovery of confidential, private information such as personal private information is not generally discoverable. Before a litigant can seek discovery of private information, it must first show that the information is directly relevant to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388.)

  • Hearing

DEANNE DWORETZKY VS BRENDA BUONORA, ET AL.

For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALMA JARAMILLO VS FARDAD FOROUZANPOUR, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 provides, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

BLUE TOWN, LLC VS SOUTHWEST SERVICES GROUP, LLC, ET AL.

For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CARLOS ANTHONY LOPEZ VS THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

Such as Prices or Monetary Amounts Stating False Information When Requested to Provide Truthful Statements Forging a Signature Knowingly Using or Distributing a Fake Document Destroying Information Material to an Investigation, Commercially Sexually Exploited Children 18 USC Section 1591 [Basson D.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Although the general rule states that a fraud claim must be specifically pleaded, less specificity is required if “it appears from the nature of allegations that defendant must necessarily possess full information,” or if the “facts lie more in the knowledge of” opposing parties. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1301 GLADSTONE STREET INVESTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ET, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The attorney affidavit of fault must contain a “straightforward admission of fault.” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) The attorney affidavit of fault, however, need not include an explanation of the reasons for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence surprise or neglect. (Martin Potts & Assocs., Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438-441.) “Relief is mandatory when a complying affidavit is filed, even if the attorney’s neglect is inexcusable.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NEIL YESCHIN VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

In addition, the Supreme Court of California has held that [i]n transactions which do not involve fiduciary or confidential relations, a cause of action for non-disclosure of material facts may arise in at least three instances: (1) the defendant makes representations but does not disclose facts which materially qualify the facts disclosed, or which render his disclosure likely to mislead; (2) the facts are known or accessible only to defendant, and defendant knows they are not known to or reasonably discoverable

  • Hearing

DENIM JOHNSON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROCHELLE FANTROY, ET AL. VS LAUREN DAY, ET AL.

Regarding the substance of the Petition, to obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) (Italics added.)

  • Hearing

KATE BRAGANTI VS RAVINDER S GREWAL ET AL

Questions to the parties and additional information requested. Do Defendants/Cross-Complainants have any objections to the additional “Post-Trial Expenses of Sale” in the amount of $4,004.95, claimed by Plaintiff Briganti (see p. 4 of the Proposed Judgment filed on 10/09/20)? Defendants to file and serve a response by December 4, 2020. Plaintiff/Briganti may file and serve any further response or reply by December 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

Communications Among Klein, Misle, Nahai “Confidential communication between client and lawyer” for purposes of the attorney-client privilege means information which, “so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ERICA AVILES V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

Information concerning these complaints may be found in the files of the aggrieved parties as well as the perpetrator, and information from the aggrieved parties’ files may lead to information relevant to CDCR’s alleged failure to prevent harassment. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 12.)

  • Hearing

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

Enclosed is an Authorization permitting the release of this information. Please respond at your earliest convenience, of course we will promptly pay the cost of copying all records upon presentation of your invoice. (Mot., Exs. 3-4.) The certified copy of the second letter states: This will confirm our telephone conversation of August 29, 2017, in which I informed you that I have been retained by Chuck Hutayana to represent him regarding the unfortunate accident of June 10, 2016.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.