What is online privacy?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – Online

Rulings on Privacy – Online

1-25 of 512 results

DFCU BANK LIMITED VS JOHN DOES

“Speech on the Internet is . . . also accorded First Amendment protection.” (Id.) “[C]riticism on the internet is often so recklessly communicated that the harm to its targets, particularly in the financial arena, may extend far beyond what is covered by rules applicable to oral rhetoric and pamphleteering.” (Id.) A court must “give weight to an anonymous speaker’s right to protect his or her privacy interest, which is safeguarded by our state constitution.” (ZL Technologies, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

DOROTHY FRASER VS. NEW ALBERTSONS INC

Plus Ds cannot argue a serious invasion of a privacy right in contact information in this case. Granted, Ps can go online and in a few minutes at $5-10/person, get all the contact information and much more. But they should not have to do that in this case. Plus, no person has successfully sued the companies that provide contact information based on a right to privacy. Things have changed. The judicial counsel has even noted this on the standard forms for discovery.

  • Hearing

AMAG INC, VS MARC ANTHONY CUBAS, ET AL.

Moreover, Vanderbilt does not have a constitutional right of privacy. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-56.) Question 11: “What is Vanderbilt’s merchant account?” Mancinelli objected based on privacy. The Court concludes that this objection is without merit for reasons stated with respect to Question Nos. 4 and 10. Question 12: “Where — to what account do the Shatter Labels’ online orders go to?” Mancinelli objected based on privacy.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTEN WILLIAMS ET AL VS CHRIS KLINGER ET AL

They say this request is frivolous for any number of reasons including: that the defendants have admitted they have not been on the easement; that there are real privacy issues; that their Dell desk top used by Mr.

  • Hearing

Ho Jung Kim DDS, Inc. v. Dao

Further, if there is a fundamental privacy right of a third party involved, it is not necessarily waived by the failure of the responding party to timely assert it, since the privacy right belongs to the third party, ultimately. See generally, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial 8:319.8 (Rutter Group 2014); Boler v. Superior Court (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 472 n.1. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to RFP 23 and produce responsive, non-privileged documents.

  • Hearing

MATTHEW LEE VS EDWARD WEILBACHER

Plaintiff’s counsel’s claim that Plaintiff only took online classes is insufficient to demonstrate this. Defendant’s counsel reasonable met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel in asking for Plaintiff’s counsel to produce documents with necessary redactions in order to protect Plaintiff’s privacy. It does not appear Plaintiff was amenable to this reasonable suggestion. The Court finds a protective order is properly issued in order to protect Plaintiff’s privacy interests.

  • Hearing

ADAN FLORES VS TELFER PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Even with marginal relevance the right to privacy soundly outweighs both need and relevance. Plaintiff could have limited the inquiry to records for the “two items” if he knows the dates – his assertion of evidence is rather vague. Instead he chose to seek every record for a ten-year period. It is an undue burden on privacy. The motions are granted.

  • Hearing

SINICHIRO NISHIO VS GIDEON NEEDLEMAN ET AL

The only relevant records are those in which patients indicated that they were referred by the website or the Internet. Referrals by some other means, eg radio, family members, friends, are neither relevant, nor likely to lead to the discovery of evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) Plaintiff has agreed to have all patient names redacted to protect the patients’ privacy.

  • Hearing

DON K KOBASHIGAWA D D S ET AL VS R MCKAY D D S INC ET AL

The only relevant records are those in which patients indicated that they were referred by the website or the Internet. Referrals by some other means, eg radio, family members, friends, are neither relevant, nor likely to lead to the discovery of evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) Plaintiff has agreed to have all patient names redacted to protect the patients’ privacy.

  • Hearing

ETC TRADE, LLC VS. ANBARAFSHAN

Nevertheless, moving Defendants argue correctly that they enjoy privacy rights in their personal banking records and financial information. Defendants contend that they are the sole members of Red Ribbon and that it was not until August 2016 that Red Ribbon first began selling laser-engraved artistic picture frames and other personal gift items online through amazon.com, under the dba Bella Busta.

  • Hearing

JUSTIN C JONES VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

The court found that the soldiers lacked a privacy interest in their faces because they photographed themselves while detaining prisoners and thereafter allowed the posting of the photos on the internet, despite the face that they intended only certain individuals to have access to the website. (Id.)

  • Hearing

BEIN IP LTD. V. BEOUTQ

Because Facebook and Twitter do not actually address the right to privacy and the legal standard applicable thereto, they do not substantiate their privacy argument.6 The Court addresses below the First Amendment argument they actually present. D. First Amendment Facebook and Twitter argue their users’ identities cannot be disclosed because they have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the internet.

  • Hearing

KATHRYN GURLEY ET AL VS MARIO GANDELSONAS ET AL

HomeAway provides an online forum that allows property owners and managers to connect with individuals seeking to rent properties on a short-term basis. (Declaration of Lee Huberman, ¶ 3.) HomeAway argues that in order to complete her online reservation, Kathryn had to click a “Continue” button, located underneath a hyperlinked sentence: “By clicking ‘Continue’ you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.” (Huberman Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

SEMEIL V. DOG EAR PUBLISHING, LLC

This defect is fatal to the cause of action and this defect alone would support the court sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action. - Offensive and Objectionable to the Reasonable Person “Moreover, the right of privacy is determined by the norm of the ordinary man; that is to say, the alleged objectionable publication must appear offensive in the light of ‘ordinary sensibilities.’ 41 Am.Jur., Privacy, sec. 12, p. 934.

  • Hearing

MATHIS VS PERKINS & MARIE CALLENDER’S LLC

Defendant’s privacy objection has some merit. Third parties unquestionably have a right of privacy in financial records, and documents kept by their employers. There must be a compelling need for such records that strongly outweighs their privacy interests. Any request for such records must be narrowly tailored considering their privacy rights. Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 655; Digital Music News LLC v.

  • Hearing

NICOLE LANGLO VS JOHN MANDUJANO

The court will also sustain defendants’ objection to RFP No. 3 on the ground that it is overly broad in seeking information and materials that violate defendants’ right to privacy and the attorney-client privilege. The request asks defendants to produce the mobile phone (“digital device”) that was used to take the photographs of the DMV records. (Conley Dec., ¶¶ 2, 3, Exs. A1 and A2.)

  • Hearing

SEMEIL V. DOG EAR PUBLISHING, LLC

““'Prosser in discussing the right of privacy as it relates to the public disclosure of private facts says: 'Some limits of this branch of the right of privacy appear to be fairly well marked out. The disclosure of the private facts must be a public disclosure, and not a private one; there must be, in other words, publicity.' (Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) s 112, p. 835; see also Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., 193 Cal.App.2d 111, 120, 14 Cal.Rptr. 208.)

  • Hearing

ETC TRADE, LLC VS. ANBARAFSHAN

The Court finds: · an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records; · the overriding interest supports sealing the records; · a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; · the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and · there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding privacy interest. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to File under Seal is Granted. B.

  • Hearing

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant also fails to demonstrate how the request is oppressive or violates Defendants' or Defendant's employees' privacy. Defendant also asserts the employee handbook contains trade secrets. To address this concern, and that of privacy, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order. Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant also fails to demonstrate how the request is oppressive or violates Defendants' or Defendant's employees' privacy. Defendant also asserts the employee handbook contains trade secrets. To address this concern, and that of privacy, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order. Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant also fails to demonstrate how the request is oppressive or violates Defendants' or Defendant's employees' privacy. Defendant also asserts the employee handbook contains trade secrets. To address this concern, and that of privacy, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order. Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant also fails to demonstrate how the request is oppressive or violates Defendants' or Defendant's employees' privacy. Defendant also asserts the employee handbook contains trade secrets. To address this concern, and that of privacy, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order. Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant also fails to demonstrate how the request is oppressive or violates Defendants' or Defendant's employees' privacy. Defendant also asserts the employee handbook contains trade secrets. To address this concern, and that of privacy, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order. Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOUGLAS TURNER VS MORRIS S GETZELS ET AL

Plaintiff must make a reservation for the IDC using the Court’s online reservation system. Once Plaintiff has confirmed an IDC date, Plaintiff must use the Court’s online reservation system to continue this motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date.

  • Hearing

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant also fails to demonstrate how the request is oppressive or violates Defendants' or Defendant's employees' privacy. Defendant also asserts the employee handbook contains trade secrets. To address this concern, and that of privacy, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order. Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.