What are Electronic Discovery Requests?

Useful Rulings on Electronic Discovery Requests

Recent Rulings on Electronic Discovery Requests

EDUARDO BARBA VS BULK TRANSPORTATION

Pursuant to section 1987.1(a), “the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a). Section 1987.1(b)(1) allows a party to bring a motion under section 1987.1(a).

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALFRED SOLORIA VS RICHARD J ROSIAK ET AL

MOTION AS TO THE GREENBERG SDT California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1987.1(a) states that if 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 reasonably made may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, or modifying it.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MARK ALAN SOBAY

Proc. § 1987.1) In making an order under section 1987.1, a judge may award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the judge finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification, or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

SERNA VS ISLANDS RESTAURANTS LP

CCP § 1987.1(a). The court finds Defendants establish that the documents Defendants seek are relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' defenses in this case. However, the court also finds that the subpoenas are impermissibly broad. The court limits the scope of both subpoenas to the time period February 1, 2017 (two years prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit) to present.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAI PHAM, MD VS EYE PHYSICIANS OF LONG BEACH, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.

DISCUSSION California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1987.1(a) states that if 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 reasonably made may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, or modifying it.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

(CCP § 1987.1(a), (b).) Motions to compel a non-party to produce documents must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR

The court is authorized by CCP §1987.1(a) to modify the subpoenas. As Defendants hav made no requests or suggestions for modification the court declines to do so

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

(CCP § 1987.1(a), (b).) In ruling on a motion made under CCP section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (CCP § 1987.2(a).) B. Discussion No party asserts that service of the subpoena was defective.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

THERESA MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS INNOVATIVE FERTILITY CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

LEGAL AUTHORITY CCP §1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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 reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GEORGE STEPHAN, ET AL. VS LISA ANN BARKETT, ET AL.

(CCP § 1987.1(a).) In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1(a).) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .”

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GUIFEN LI VS GANG LI

(CCP § 1987.1(a).) In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1(a).) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .”

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AKIRA KOKUBU VS TAKASHI SUDO, ET AL.

(CCP § 1987.1(a), (b).) Motions to compel a non-party to produce documents must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE – ORANGE COUNTY V LEWANDOWSKI

. § 2031.310(d).) Indeed, in Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

CARLA ZAVALA VS EK OM, INC, A, ET AL.

(CCP §2031.310(f).) The Motion is DENIED. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish good cause for the requested exam and data it is requesting. It is undisputed that Plaintiff has voluntarily produced video and audio recordings of the alleged sexual assault against her; and the email that she sent to herself shortly after the purported assault.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID CHAVEZ, ET AL. VS GROUP V SAN BERNARDINO LP, ET AL.

(CCP § 1987.1(a), bold emphasis added.) There is no meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 1987.1, but a motion to quash does require a separate statement: (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: . . .

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ELVIRA JERONIMO, ET AL. VS JEAN-PAUL CHIARI, ET AL.

(See CCP § 1987.1.) “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action,” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...” (citation).”

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

LEGAL AUTHORITY CCP § 1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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 reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

(CCP § 1987.1(a).) In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1(a).) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .”

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LIZETTE SAINZ VS BRIAN GORE

(CCP § 1987.1(a).) In making an order pursuant to CCP § 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (CCP § 1987.2(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

LIZETTE SAINZ VS BRIAN GORE

(CCP § 1987.1(a).) In making an order pursuant to CCP § 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (CCP § 1987.2(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

PROPERTY BUYER INC. VS MARIA BARTOLINI, ET AL.

., § 1987.1(a).) There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet and confer declaration. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court . . . any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JOCELIN CERVANTES-CHAVEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Moreover, as argued by plaintiffs, since the requests are for electronically stored information, defendant has the initial burden to justify this objection under CCP § 2031.310 (d), which provides, in connection with motions to compel further responses to document demands: “(d) In a motion under subdivision (a) relating to the production of electronically stored information, the party or affected person objecting to or opposing the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL VS. CASPAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION In relevant part, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) provides: If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things . . . 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

    Oct 13, 2020

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

(CCP § 2031.210(d).) Defendant has asserted that the discovery sought is potentially protected by the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. (E.g. Defendant’s Response to RPD No. 1.) As such, Defendant has not waived these objections. However, to the extent that such objections apply, Defendant must identify such privilege and other required information in a privilege log. (CCP § 2031.240(b) [privilege log]; Catalina Island Yacht Club v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DALTON ERB VS MICHAEL SCOTT POLLACK

(CCP § 1987.1(a).) “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” (CRC, Rule 3.1346.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 34     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.