How must an attorney preserve confidential information?

Useful Resources for Confidential Information

Recent Rulings on Confidential Information

226-250 of 10000 results

LILIAN ISELA MORALES COMPARINI VS JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS SERRAN

Thereafter, on August 19, 2020, attorney Middleton filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. On September 30, 2020, the Court issued a minute order, taking the motion to be relieved as counsel under submission, and setting an order to show cause re: status of an address for Plaintiff Lilian Isela Morales Comparini for October 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

ALCOTT ENTERPRISES, LLC VS MARAKATA, LLC

Under the agreement and SOWs, AE was to set up Marakata’s information technology system, act as Chief Technical Officer for Marakata, procure necessary and required licenses for Marakata, and prepare Marakata for up to 75 users at any given time. Id., ¶6. Thereafter, AE provided services to Marakata, including preparing the infrastructure for Marakata’s information technology systems; providing monthly support; and providing services as a virtual Chief Technology Officer. Id., ¶7.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALEXANDRA FACTOR VS DV FINANCIAL GROUP, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant contends pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.1 et seq., the court can award attorney fees and costs against the party and their counsel, for pursuing a wrongful subpoena. The court denies the request. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion in bad faith nor are any of the requirements of the subpoena oppressive.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DANIEL FORSTER, ET AL VS. CHARLES E. JANEKE, & DOES 1-10

If the complaint is verified . . . the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant. Here, page seven of Defendant’s cross-complaint includes his verification attesting to the truth of the facts alleged. (Cross-Complaint, p. 7.) Plaintiffs’ answer is also verified and admits portions of the cross-complaint and denies others. Plaintiffs specifically indicate which paragraphs in the cross-complaint they deny and which they admit.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

In Simpson Strong, plaintiffs alleged defamation by an attorney who ran print advertisements implying that plaintiffs' products (fasteners) were defective; the offending statements, however, did not concern the legal services offered by the advertiser (defendant attorney), but rather the fasteners sold by plaintiff. As such, defendant's speech did not fall within the commercial exemption.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

COAST FITNESS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF HAWTHORNE, ET AL.

“Instead of doing an independent study of existing/close by Planet Fitness Clubs, LLG (for some reason) asked SCPFH to provide the requested information from any Planet Fitness club of their choosing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CIPRIANO RIOS VS ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Defendant seeks to compel arbitration based on the Aspire Public Schools At-Will Employment, Confidential Information, and Arbitration Agreement, which provides: A. Arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DONGHONG DENG, ET AL. VS EAST WEST BANK, ET AL.

“Constructive fraud is a unique species of fraud applicable only to a fiduciary or confidential relationship. [A]s a general principle constructive fraud comprises any act, omission or concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence which results in damage to another even though the conduct is not otherwise fraudulent.” (Assilzafeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 415.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SEAN ROSS PAUL VS TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH ET AL

The Current Motions Moving Defendant filed the following four discovery motions: (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Moving Defendant’s form interrogatories, set three and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $1,295.00 (the “Form Interrogatories Motion”); (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Moving Defendant’s special interrogatories, set three and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his attorney of record in the amount

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MICHELE VEDON VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant has not established that the requests exceed the bounds of discoverable information, and therefore, the motion is denied on these grounds. Second, Defendant “submits that the burden of producing the requested contracts ‘clearly outweighs’ the likelihood that the information will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Mot., 6:20-22.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KAMAL MCHANTAF VS ASHANTI TRAVERS, ET AL.

If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

VIRGINIA ANDRIE, ET AL. VS LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Yie is truly merely an independent contractor, the Court urges Plaintiffs to consider whether their claims against Trinitycare are well-taken and reevaluate their claims in light of this information. At the pleading stage, however, Plaintiffs have pled that Dr. Yie is a managing agent of Trinitycare. Because Plaintiffs have also pled that Dr. Yie engaged in acts that would give rise to enhanced remedies under the elder abuse act, Trinitycare’s motion to strike is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

KAREN TRAN VS RICARDO PEREZ, ET AL.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories [and demand for production of documents], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP §§2031.310 and 2030.300.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GETHSEMANI CHURCH, CHRISTIAN PENTECOSTAL FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, INC. VS MICHAEL A. GONZALEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On March 18, 2020, Frances filed a Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State which details of the current makeup of “the boards” and notes herself as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Miguel as CFO, and Carlos Gonzalez (“Carlos”) as Secretary. Frances Decl., ¶4, Ex. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DREW B. GRUNDFOR V. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Law Firm Defendants bring their motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b), which provides in relevant part: By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, [or] a pleading … an attorney … is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC. VS KEN GUTELL

On February 10, 2020, the Court issued an Order on Respondent’s Motion for Attorney Fees, which granted Gutell $5,450 in attorney fees and $557 in costs. Gutell now moves to amend the Judgment to add additional nonparty judgment debtors on the basis that these judgment debtors are alter egos of NBA. No opposition to the motion was filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

BETTY JO SHAEIB VS SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL.

Here, Smith & Nephew, Inc. identifies the following issue of fact and law that overlap between arbitration and this litigation: Failure to warn and/or advise Plaintiff of risks and information regarding the device components utilized in her total hip arthroplasty, which will require the same witnesses, documents, and evidence at both the arbitration and judicial proceeding regarding the information presented to her regarding the device components prior to Plaintiff’s surgery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

IN THE MATTER OF RENEY CHARTIER

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF PHILLIP MICHAEL ANDERSON

Approve statutory attorney fee in the amount of $9,529.98 to attorney Pollock. Attorney includes a reimbursement of costs in the amount of $1,200 in the Proposed Distribution. The reimbursement request has not been included or itemized in either the First and Final Account and Report or the Supplement. Deny. The Proposed Distribution attached to the Supplement is approved, except the request for costs of $1200.00 to attorney Pollock.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF JULIE DAWN HORNETT

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit:

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF EVA ANNIKA NOWLIN

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ESTATE OF ANGELINA MORENO

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

SWOPE VS LIBERTY UNION HIGH SC

The Court notes that Plaintiff mentions that he was not properly instructed on how to use a standing desk, but given the clarification by Plaintiff’s attorney these statements appear to provide background information. Negligent Hiring / Retention (Cause of Action Three) The negligent hiring and retention claim includes many of the allegations included for the negligent supervision claim.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MOISES FLORENTINO VS GOOD PEOPLE COFFEE CO.

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

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MAJORIE HOLDSWORTH ET AL VS COMFORT BEDDING MANUFACTURING IN

The court cannot approve a $1,750,000 settlement apportioning only $45,000 to minor Claimant without specific information concerning the reasons for doing, including information about each Plaintiff’s special damages. Pursuant to CRC 7.952, Claimant and Petitioner must appear at the hearing on this matter unless the court finds good cause to excuse their appearance. Claimant herein is only ten years old, and was only about seven when the incident occurred.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.