What are Electronic Discovery Requests?

Useful Rulings on Electronic Discovery Requests

Recent Rulings on Electronic Discovery Requests

WELLS VS YENG

The production would include relevant meta data and plaintiff reserved the right to shift the cost to defendant pursuant to CCP sections 2031.060(e) or 2031.310(f). - The plaintiff claims he has fulfilled his obligation to produce documents through the several productions that have occurred prior to this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WHITTAKER VS. LAGO

. § 1987.1(a), (b).) The court “may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

BARON V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

. § 2031.310(d), the Court finds that they should be imposed in the reduced sum of $1,375 for this Motion, as to Plaintiff alone. ((See C.C.P. § 2023.040 [a request for sanctions shall, in the notice of motion, identify every party, person or attorney against whom it is sought].) Such sanctions are to be paid to Regents, through its counsel of record, within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling. Counsel for Regents is to give notice of these rulings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

BARON V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

. § 2031.310(d), the Court finds that they should be imposed in the reduced sum of $1,375 for this Motion, as to Plaintiff alone. ((See C.C.P. § 2023.040 [a request for sanctions shall, in the notice of motion, identify every party, person or attorney against whom it is sought].) Such sanctions are to be paid to Regents, through its counsel of record, within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling. Counsel for Regents is to give notice of these rulings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D 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

    Aug 06, 2020

JANE DOE VS ORLANDES FLETCHER, III, ET AL.

., § 1987.1(a).) Conversely, the statute also allows the court to quash subpoenas. Analysis MLKCH learned in discovery that plaintiff reported that she had been sexually assaulted on MLKCH’s grounds on or around August 12, 2018, three months before the assault at issue in this case. MLKCH propounded subpoenas to LAPD seeking its records concerning this incident.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDBERG VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER

CCP §2031.310(d) Moving Party to give notice

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

ENCHEV VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

., § 2031.310(d).) Unlike in West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, VWGoA has not provided a declaration to support that the burden to comply is too much. However, it appears VWGoA would probably be able to provide such evidence in light of the amount in controversy and the apparent burden involved. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer with the above analysis in mind, including specifically as to a protective order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STARZ ACQUISITION, LLC, ET AL. VS ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., ET AL.

(CCP §§ 2031.210(d), 2031.310(d).) The objecting party bears the burden of substantiating this objection. (CCP § 2031.310(d).) If the objecting party carries this burden, “the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause.” (CCP § 2031.310(e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VIVERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS BLAINE HOLDING & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

. § 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, and shall specify the form in which any electronically stored information is to be produced, if a particular form is desired.” (C.C.P. § 2020.410(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STARZ ACQUISITION, LLC, ET AL. VS ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., ET AL.

(CCP §§ 2031.210(d), 2031.310(d).) The objecting party bears the burden of substantiating this objection. (CCP § 2031.310(d).) If the objecting party carries this burden, “the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause.” (CCP § 2031.310(e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FURONG YE, ET AL. VS GUOZHONG CHEN, ET AL.

., section 1987.1.) A court may abuse its discretion in denying requests for discovery, or in granting a motion to quash, where it fails to consider interests favoring disclosure, or an order partially limiting rather than outright denying discovery. (Johnson v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1073.) “When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery.” (Tylo v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARSHA LYONS VS OFFICE DEPOT, INC., 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

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HARI JEWELS, INC. V. SHERYL LOWE DESIGNS LLC, ET AL.

Analysis: CCP § 1987.1(a) provides that the court may, on motion, “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.” At issue is a bank account in Lowe’s name only. Plaintiff has alleged, in some detail, Lowe’s actions that allegedly give rise to her alter ego liability for the debts of the corporation and/or limited liability company.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

JORDAN STREMFEL VS NADER KALANTAR, , M.D., ET AL.

Pursuant to CCP § 1987.1(a), the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance issued to Paul J. Fruhner, P.A. is QUASHED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DELINIA R PINZON ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Discussion 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 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

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOHN FELACTU VS J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL

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 terms or conditions

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

ZHONG LUN LAW FIRM LLP VS HAILIN LI , ET AL.

Code 1987.1.) A petition to compel arbitration is a suit in equity to compel specific performance of the alleged arbitration agreement. (See California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd., 161 Cal. App. 3d 393 (1984).) Specifically, it is a summary proceeding such that a court may rule even without the need for an evidentiary hearing. Bouton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 412, 428. Although discovery is permitted in summary proceedings, it is subject to relevancy restrictions. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

RAMON SANTACRUZ VS CAESARSTONE USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

., § 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

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KRISTEN JONES VS JL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Court modifies the subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1987.1(a) subject to the following conditions: (1) that Plaintiff’s entire employee file should not be disclosed; and (2) only Plaintiff’s wage statements, reviews, reprimands, and termination notices be disclosed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DUNN VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

CCP §1987.1(a). The motion is timely. The motion was brought prior to the production of any documents, regardless of the date set forth on the subpoena. The time limitation is not jurisdictional. "Nothing in the procedure set forth above suggests that a court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to quash if it is brought after the date set forth in the subpoena for production." Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1312.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS ORLANDES FLETCHER, III, ET AL.

., § 1987.1(a).) Conversely, the statute also allows the court to quash subpoenas. Analysis MLKCH discovered, through a deposition subpoena to LAPD, that plaintiff previously reported a sexual assault on MLKCH’s grounds on or around August 12, 2018, three months before the assault at issue in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CURTIN MARITIME CORP VS PACIFIC DREDGE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC

Under CCP section 1987.1, a party may move to quash the subpoena entirely, in part, or for the court to enter a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Under CCP section 2020.220 the subpoenaed person (AIS in this case) may object to the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220.) Defendants do not cite any authority for their objections, which have not been made in the form of a motion to quash or protective order. AIS does not object to production.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KRISTEN JONES VS JL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Court modifies the subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1987.1(a) subject to the following conditions: (1) that Plaintiff’s entire employee file from WBI should not be disclosed; and (2) only Plaintiff’s wage statements, reviews, reprimands, and termination notices be disclosed. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CURTIN MARITIME CORP VS PACIFIC DREDGE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC

Under CCP section 1987.1, a party may move to quash the subpoena entirely, in part, or for the court to enter a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Under CCP section 2020.220 the subpoenaed person (AIS in this case) may object to the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220.) Defendants do not cite any authority for their objections, which have not been made in the form of a motion to quash or protective order. AIS does not object to production.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.