How must an attorney preserve confidential information?

Useful Resources for Confidential Information

Recent Rulings on Confidential Information

51-75 of 10000 results

TUMBLING WATERS MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS TAMMY ANNE KNAPP-ARAGON, ET AL.

visit Petitioner’s on-site park management office or attempt to access the office by force or deceit at any time; (4) that Respondents not publish knowingly false information about the ownership of the Park or that the payment of rent is for homeowners association dues; (5) that Respondents not publish knowingly false information about the management authority of J&H or the lawful management of its on-site employees; and (6) that Respondents remove from all common areas in the Park publications by the HOA and

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES INC VS. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the attorney is consulted....

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JOSEPH BENARON ET AL VS JOHN CARDILINO ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Attorney Fees Tentative Ruling: The court grants defendant Frances Cardilino’s motion for attorney fees and orders plaintiffs Joseph Benaron and Emily Benaron to pay defendant Frances Cardilino $24,961.47.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RE RAY F CHAVEZ REVOCABL LIVING TRUST

Statement showing services rendered, hours and rates charged so ct. can evaluate attorney fees reported. LR 7.450. 2. Proposed Order Note: Per 7-27-2020 minute order, Atty. Lara Heisler was ordered to appear 9-2-2020. Atty. Heisler failed to appear 9-2-2020. ALEXANDREA QUIMSON LARA J HEISLER ALISON JAYNE QUIMSON SAN PEDRO Need appearances to report status of filing accounting Notes: 1. Order appointing uncle of minor, Jafari Baker as guardian of estate filed 2-8-2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RACHELE RIVERA, ET AL. VS JJ F&B, INC, ET AL.

Defendant objected by raising the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine, but produced 3 non-privileged photos. While Defendant argues that no further response is necessary and that its objections are valid to protect records for experts and attorney-client privileged information, it is unclear if a full production of documents was made or whether Defendant is continuing to withhold documents. To the extent that privileged documents exist, a privilege log should be provided.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BENJAMIN HOLGUIN VS PHILIPPE QUILICI, M.D., ET AL.

Yousefian only referred the plaintiff to hospice care when plaintiff did not want to undergo chemotherapy, radiation, or further surgeries and therefore [Yousefian] did nothing wrong exemplifies a profound lack of understanding of her obligations to her patient, and underscores the facts that she failed to provide her patient with all of the information required to make an informed and appropriate decision regarding his condition, prognosis, options and future care.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

IRINA MATEVOSYAN VS TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Information is available at: http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/CourtroomSeating.aspx Matevosyan v Twin City Fire Ins. Co. Motion to Strike Calendar: Case No.: 20BBCV00732 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 Action Filed: October 22, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set MP: Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company RP: Plaintiff Irina Matevosyan ALLEGATIONS: Irina Matevosyan ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Twin City Fire Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation, d.b.a.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRANK ORTEGA VS WHEELS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC

In most respects, Plaintiff gave the information she had. While Defendant may feel the information inadequate, Defendant has a remedy. See, e.g., Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 CA4th 573, 580-581. Defendant’s motion also contained boilerplate sections where it moved to compel further response without anything more that repeating the bases from other responses. See, e.g., Interrogatory Nos. 13-14.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

Information is available at: http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/CourtroomSeating.aspx Coloredge, Inc. v Gelardi Motion to Compel Arbitration Calendar: Case No.: 19BBCV00068 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 Action Filed: January 22, 2019 Trial Date: Not Set MP: Defendants Duggal Visual Solutions, Inc; Edie Gelardi RP: Plaintiff Coloredge, Inc.; Defendant Final Film, Inc. ALLEGATIONS: The instant action arises from allegations that Defendants Duggal Visual Solutions, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TRIO PASADENA, LLC VS OS PACIFIC, LLC

This information, as specified under the statute, would need to be considered by the court in connection with the corrected name. See CCP section 1279.5 (f).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JESSE DANIELS VS NORTHSTAR SOURCING GROUP LLC ET AL

First, Defendants devote no time to explaining why the information sought in these form interrogatories is irrelevant, but rather rely on a conclusory assertion that that it is. Second, Defendants seem to be arguing that Mr. Perkins should be exempted from providing discovery responses because his counsel could be contacted for the same information. Defendants have not produced any case law or statutory support to suggest that the information sought of Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSE LUIS INTERIAN CHERRIZ ET AL VS JOHNNIE KUO ET AL

Based on the additional information provided, the Court finds that the settlement is reasonable and approves distribution of the funds to the special needs trust.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

OLIVIA TORRES VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC.

Information regarding each sweep was tracked on a log called the “Sweep Trax Activity Report.” (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5.) Porters scan a bar code as the porter begins the sweep of a section in the store and scans the bar code again after the area has been swept and cleaned. (Id.) Lopez authenticates a copy of the Sweep Trax Activity Report for the day of the incident and states that the meat department where Plaintiff alleges she fell is in Aisle 1 through Last & Back Aisle. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MIRIAM HERNANDEZ DE PEREZ, ET AL. VS TERESA HERNANDEZ

In the initial complaint, Plaintiffs originally pled facts based on “information and belief” and made conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s knowledge and willful/deliberate failure to maintain the property; now, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew or should have known of their legal obligation to maintain the property because Plaintiffs had notified Defendant of the substandard conditions, including the hallway door and tracks, etc. on numerous occasions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROGER HUNTRESS VS. SHERMAN HO

Plaintiff s attorney never informed him that the exchange of expert information would be due and Plaintiff was unable to find another attorney to replace her since he could not meet with them in person due to COVID lockdown, and several refused to take a case that was so far along in the litigation. (1d. 1| 21-24.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ANI MIRZOYAN VS WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE INC.

Specifically, as to substantive unconscionability, Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement lacks mutuality to arbitrate and prohibits attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff but allows them to a prevailing defendant and prohibits appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ZOHAR MANAGEMENT, LLC VS HOLLOWAY DRIVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSA DIAZ DE MENJIVAR VS P.R. PERNECKY MANAGEMENT ET AL.

Information is available at: http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/CourtroomSeating.aspx Diaz de Menjivar v Pernecky Management Motion for Summary Judgment Calendar: Case No.: EC068824 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 Action Filed: June 26, 2018 Trial Date: April 19, 2021 MP: Defendants P.R. Pernecky Management Corporation d.b.a. McDonald's Restaurant; Silvia Vargas; Laura Garcia RP: Plaintiff Rosa Diaz De Menjivar ALLEGATIONS: Rosa Diaz De Menjivar ("Plaintiff") filed suit against P.R.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.

An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VILPULKUMAR PATEL VS GOVIND VAGHASHIA, ET AL.

While it is troubling defendant omitted this information from his Notice of Non-Opposition to the instant motion, filed January 8, 2021, the Court nonetheless finds that the instant motion is not moot, as the deposition has yet to take place. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Third party Rakesh Kothari is ordered to appear for deposition on January 19, 2021, at 10:00. At the hearing the parties shall be prepared to discuss whether the deposition shall take place in-person or shall be conducted remotely.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JANSON V. SHINALL

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 15, 2021

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES V. VENDLEY

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 15, 2021

HAWKES V. CHANG

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 15, 2021

PEOPLE V. KRYLOV

APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM ARE REQUIRED AND MEETING INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED. PARTIES TO CONTACT THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AT 530-621-5867 TO PROVIDE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO SEND ZOOM INVITES TO ATTENDEES.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MATTER OF SIMPSON AND TEDESCO

Generally, adoption records are confidential. The petition, relinquishment or consent, agreement, order, report to the court from an investigating agency, and any power of attorney and deposition filed under Family C. 8600 et seq. are not open to inspection by anyone other than the parties, their attorneys, and the department, except on the written authority of the judge. (Family C. 9200(a).) (See 32 Golden Gate L. Rev. 271 [opening California adoption records]; 28 Southwestern U. L.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 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.