How must an attorney preserve confidential information?

Useful Resources for Confidential Information

Recent Rulings on Confidential Information

176-200 of 10000 results

IN THE MATTER OF NANCY LEE DOWALIBY

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

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

COLEMAN VS. TRANS BAY

[citation omitted] Such a plaintiff also owes responsibility to the public at large; they act, as the statute's name suggests, as a private attorney general, and 75% of the penalties go to the LWDA ‘for enforcement of labor laws . . . and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code.’” (Id., at 1134.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

ANIL SHARMA VS. ZAMINDARI TRUST, ET AL

Newly enacted CCP section 599 continues the discovery cutoff as long as the deadline had not already passed by 3/19/2020: (a) Notwithstanding any other law and unless ordered otherwise by a court or otherwise agreed to by the parties, a continuance or postponement of a trial date extends any deadlines that have not already passed as of March 19, 2020, applicable to discovery, including the exchange of expert witness information, mandatory settlement conferences, and summary judgment motions in the same matter

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., VS CHRIS OSITI DRATI, ET AL.

(4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

MAHER MEMARZADEH VS LOTTIE COHEN ET AL

Plaintiff alleges that he would not have retained Cohen as his attorney had he known of these facts. (SAC, ¶ 55.) Defendants contend that the concealment claim fails because Plaintiff does not allege that Cohen had a duty to disclose the fact that she was under investigation. Defendants cite to provisions of the Business and Professions Code and the State Bar rules to support their contention that disciplinary investigations are generally confidential. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.1, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MATTHEW GILES VS GEORGE STERNI ET AL.

To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility as we maneuver around the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

TRACY DURONSLET, ET AL. VS JOYCOOK KOREA, ET AL.

As an initial matter, the declaration lacks foundation because it does not specify any of the information or listings on which McAndrews relied to conclude that Defendant produced the stove. As such, his testimony is without support in the record, and therefore cannot raise triable issues of material fact. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1135.) Putting that aside, however, the declaration does not link the stove at issue to Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ELIZABETH HOLTHE, ET AL. V. PATRICK GEISKOPF, ET AL.

On October 21, 2020, 36 days later and only a week before the rescheduled deposition was to take place, a telephone call took place between the attorneys and defendant’s attorney again postponed the deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel reiterated a request for information about defendant’s recent accident, including the date of the accident, the nature of defendant’s injuries, and why he could not attend a video deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

KRISTI COURTOIS, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF AUSTEENE G. COOPER VS NEWREZ, LLC., ET AL.

This code section states that a mortgage servicer “shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower's default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower's loan status and loan information.” (Civ. Code § 2924.17, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JENIFER EDELMAN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC ET AL

Attorney McCoy is advised that he should not seek reimbursement for the IDC, and that almost $34,000 does not appear to the court to be reasonable. Date: January 14, 2021 Honorable Stuart M. Rice Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JONG M. PARK, ET AL. VS PROPERTY WORK, LLC, ET AL.

I clearly told you I am in the process of getting the contractor’s license and I have even provided you contact information of the school I go to via text msg when you showed interest. We started this contract knowing I am not a licensed contractor and you didn’t even pay me for the supervision of the job.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MARIA CONCEPCION ROSALES IRASAVA VS PHARMAVITE LLC ET AL

The Court finds that Defendant, as the party seeking the constitutionally protected information, has carried his burden establishing direct relevance of the information sought. First, the Court notes that Plaintiff concedes that Defendant is entitled to records related to Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MERLE'S MANOR II, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers providing this information. IV. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC’s Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 is GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. However, the request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 798.85 is CONTINUED TO MARCH 1, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

AMBER RUPP VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

GM finally argues that Plaintiffs’ requests involve confidential information and trade secrets which ought not to be disclosed in the absence of a protective order. (Opposition at pp. 8–9.) Courts must act to protect trade secrets by reasonable means including protective orders, in camera hearings, sealing records and restricting disclosure. (Civil Code § 3426.5; Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1555 n. 16.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

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

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST VS MAJESTIC REALTY COMPANY, ET AL.

The City contends West submitted information to the City’s third-party claim administrator, and not to the City Clerk or any other person at the City. The City contends that despite being advised of the insufficiency of the notice, West failed to submit any claim or amended claim to the City.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The separate statement filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2020 that accompanied the Second Amended Notice of Motion does not provide for all of the information required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). In particular, the December 2, 2020 Separate Statement only includes the text of the special interrogatory and the objections asserted by Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAVID ALOMATSI VS DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC

TENTATIVE RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiff David Alomatsi has brought a motion to seal documents containing his confidential medical records and other private information. Having reviewed the moving, opposing and reply papers, as well as the motion of Defendant Deanco Healthcare LLC to strike the reply brief, the Court rules as follows. I.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JANE DOE VS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Moving Defendants’ first argument fails because Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration presented evidence from a former Scientologist, Hana Whitfield, who only learned of Plaintiff’s action after reading the court’s January 30, 2020 ruling and thus could not have provided information in support of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration beforehand. (Opposition, 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IGNACIO HERNANDEZ VS WILLIAM RIVAS

The determination is based on information available at the time of settlement. (Tech-Bilt v. Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.) Moreover, “[t]he challenger must prove ‘the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to [the stated] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of [section 877.6].’ ” (North County Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091, quoting Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499-500.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The separate statement filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2020 that accompanied the Second Amended Notice of Motion does not provide for all of the information required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). In particular, the December 2, 2020 Separate Statement only includes the text of the special interrogatory and the objections asserted by Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARTINEZ V. MILAN 09, INC.

As to Form Interrogatory No. 215.1, Don Jefe fails to establish preliminary facts necessary to support the assertion of attorney-client privilege or that the interrogatory seeks a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MANUEL ARNULFO YBARRA, VS JUANA JAZMIN GARCIA HERNANDEZ

To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility as we maneuver around the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JACQUELINE HUTTON VS BOSCO CREDIT ET AL.

This Court will set an OSC re Monetary Sanctions against the offending attorney under CCP § 177.5. It should be noted that if any sanctions were to be awarded for such a violation they would be non-discovery sanctions, and as such, they could have serious consequences. III.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MARTINEZ V. MILAN 09, INC.

As to Form Interrogatory No. 215.1, Don Jefe fails to establish preliminary facts necessary to support the assertion of attorney-client privilege or that the interrogatory seeks a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 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.