How must an attorney preserve confidential information?

Useful Resources for Confidential Information

Recent Rulings on Confidential Information

26-50 of 10000 results

PATRICIA JEANNE EBINER VS TRAVIS A HOLLAND, ET AL.

Katzen’s Declaration and Professional Services Billing Statements (pp. 10-23 of the Proposed Order); Remove Attachments 7c(2)(b)(2) and 7c(2)(b)(3) including references to such attachments in proposed Order (MC-351); Attachment 12, paragraph 11 shall include specific information related to the OSC; and Attachment 12, paragraph 13 shall include a specific date for the filing of the First Account (one year following the approval of the Petition).

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMILAH JACKSON VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

GM also objects to this request because it seeks information which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Further, GM objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM will produce the applicable technical service bulletins and recalls for the subject vehicle. The court finds that these requests are proper and narrowly tailored to Plaintiff’s vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LOS ANGELES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD, ET AL.

“The declarations may be on information and belief, if necessary. However, in such cases, the ‘specific facts’ supporting such information and belief (the sources of the information) must also be alleged.” Id. at 8:1495.8 (citation omitted). “Most declarations are made by the attorney for the moving party, who is usually more familiar with the relevancy and ‘specific facts’ constituting ‘good cause’ for inspection.” Id. at 8:1495.9.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOYTEX INTERNATIONAL TRADE LIMITED VS KL GLOBAL INTERNATONAL

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel RELIEF REQUESTED: Order permitting attorney to be relieved as attorney of record in this action GROUNDS FOR MOTION: Attorney-client relationship has deteriorated. Client has not paid agreed fees.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

OLIVER D'ALEMAN , ET AL. VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

Defense counsel requested Plaintiff’s counsel enter into a stipulated protective order before producing confidential information but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to do so. (Holdsworth Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) The protective order is modeled on the Los Angeles Superior Court’s sample Stipulation and Protective Order. The court is authorized to limit discovery through protective orders. Such orders may be granted on motion of any party or other person affected by the discovery sought.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, ET AL. VS THE HEIRS OR DEVISEES OF MARY C. PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, DECEASED, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SAID DECEDENT,

(c) Information that the lessor cannot retaliate against a lessee pursuant to Section 1942.5 of the Civil Code.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TOBIAS V. TOBIAS

PARTIES ARE TO CONTACT THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AT 530 - 530-621-5867 TO PROVIDE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO SEND ZOOM INVITES TO ATTENDEES.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

RANCHO CIENEGA, LLC, ET AL. VS LEVI ESTATES, LLC,, ET AL.

Brokers assert that Plaintiffs’ recoverable damages totaled approximately $105,760, comprising $23,760 in moving expenses, the deposit of $10,000, TCRE’s broker’s commission of $22,000, and attorney fees of $50,000. (Leff Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendants argue that Brokers failed to provide an evidentiary basis for this valuation of Plaintiffs’ damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHANG KOK AHN ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

May call for attorney-client privileged information. May call for attorney work product. I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer. Privacy and confidentiality as well.” (Sep. Statement 8:20-23.) However, a review of Defendant’s submitted transcript reveals the following interaction: “Q. So the question was: Do you know if there are any such DE-6 quarterly payroll documents for any of the plaintiffs in this case? A. No, I don't know.” (Ohn Decl. Exh. D, 3:12-15.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AMNON HOROWITZ VS SHENANDOAH VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS LLC, ET AL.

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BABAK PANAHPOUR VS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Bock court expounded that, in the insurance context, “ ‘California courts have recognized a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, i.e., a duty to communicate accurate information, in two circumstances. The first situation arises where providing false information poses a risk of and results in physical harm to person or property. The second situation arises where information is conveyed in a commercial setting for a business purpose.’ ” Citation.] (Id. at 229.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAMES MARTIN MCDANIELS VS FORD MOTOR CO., ET AL.

The ACM recorded information about the accident and the performance of the Taurus and its systems, including its airbag systems, during the crash. (UMF 14.) The ACM indicated that at the time of the accident, the Taurus’ airbag system was operating as intended. (UMF 15.) The ACM also indicated that there were no faults recorded in the airbag system, nor were there any commands sent by the ACM to deploy the driver’s side curtain airbag during the crash. (UMF 16.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

IN RE THE ESTATE OF ANA MARIA ROMERO, DECEASED

In addition to these amounts, the accounting did not provide all information required by California Rules of Court, Rule 7.550 (b). The petitioner must provide the summary of account and applicable information to show the breakdown of assets on hand at the beginning and at the end. 6. Petition, item 29: The Proposed Distribution (Exhibit F) does not allocate the debt or state how it was paid by the heirs, or any available information.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

YOLANDA FUENTES-SANCHEZ V. FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Information was available to Plaintiff that could have permitted her to allege her fraud cause of action in her original complaint. The proposed fraud cause of action also does not relate to the same facts as the original complaint, which only concerned Defendants’ failures under the “lemon law” to repair or repurchase the subject vehicle. FCA was thus not on notice that fraud might be an issue in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

BENJAMIN SUNCIN VS H & H AUTO PARTS WHOLESALE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

A prevailing employee is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the action (Lab. Code §2699(g)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LILIA NILA GARCIA, ET AL. VS RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ ZAVALZA, ET AL.

Sanctions are sought against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record. However, Defendants do not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiffs directly; rather, the subpoenas were served by Plaintiffs’ attorney of record. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs’ attorney of record only. Plaintiffs’ attorney of record is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, in the total amount of $1,290, within twenty days.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JACQUELINE GIBSON VS BERNARD WINGFIELD, ET AL.

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MANUEL KAZANJIAN VS. ADRIEN VINCENT SEVERO, ET AL.

Stepanyan (counsel for Contractor Defendants) states that on April 16, 2020, Menco’s counsel requested information about where payment was to be issued, and Mr. Stepanyan provided the mailing address and W9 of a third-party adjuster for their insurer. (Id., ¶4, Ex. B.) He states, however, that Menco has refused to comply with the terms of the settlement by failing to pay the $2,500 amount within 30 days of execution of the agreement (i.e., May 20, 2020). (Id., ¶5.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KATHERINE STRIDE VS LANCE YANG, ET AL.

With respect to Form Interrogatory Nos. 16.9 and 16.10, Messian did not just justify his objections based on attorney work product or privilege. Nor did Messian provide a privilege log, as required by CCP § 2031.240(c)(1). Those objections are thus invalid, and Messian must respond.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AJILA MONIQUE HARRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TESLA, ENTITY TYPE UNKNOWN, ET AL.

However, “although in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient . . . privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

IN RE THE ESTATE OF LEONCIA JOYA PILA, DECEASED

If the court is satisfied with the information provided, the court intends to rule as follows: The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition is granted as prayed. The court appoints Reynaldo J. Pila, Jr. as administrator with full authority under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. Bond is set at $1,200,000. Letters shall not issue until bond is posted with the clerk.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

EFRAIN AMAYA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MATHER BROS. INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATHERINE WILLIAMS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PARTIES MAY JOIN THIS COURT CALENDAR REMOTELY UTILIZING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Join Zoom Meeting https://solano-courts-ca- gov.zoom.us/j/81165264961?

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JASMINE MARIE ACOSTA VS DANN FRANK SARNOSKI ET AL

Plaintiff contends it does not list any specific tests that will be performed or other information. Finally, Plaintiff contends Defendants unreasonably delayed in seeking this IME, as Defendants have always known the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries. In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff concedes she is claiming neurological injuries and ignores these injuries were not previously evaluated. Moreover, Defendants argue the moving papers sufficiently set forth the manner of the proposed examination.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

VEHANOOSH GRIGORIAN VS. ALEX MEGEREDCHIAN ET AL

Plaintiff also alleges that in the course of that lawsuit, defendants are improperly using confidential information derived from plaintiff in the course of defendants’ representation of plaintiff. The file shows that on December 5, 2018, the parties filed and the court signed a Stipulation and Order Staying Action, staying this matter for all purposes pending resolution of the other action between the partners, which is pending in Van Nuys.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  « first    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.