What is online privacy?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – Online

Rulings on Privacy – Online

1-25 of 431 results

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

    Jul 17, 2015

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

    Mar 30, 2010

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

    Aug 01, 2016

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

    Jul 02, 2020

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

    Mar 24, 2017

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

    Mar 24, 2017

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

    Jul 07, 2017

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

    May 01, 2018

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

    Nov 21, 2019

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

    Feb 06, 2018

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

    Apr 27, 2018

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

    Apr 07, 2017

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

    Aug 25, 2017

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

    Nov 15, 2017

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

    May 19, 2017

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

    May 04, 2017

HEATHER REYES ET AL VS JENNIFER GOODNIGHT ET AL

The subpoena asks for “any and all documents, paper and digital records pertaining to care, treatment and examination” of Plaintiff, with no limit as to time or type of treatment. Plaintiff argues the subpoena invades her right to privacy, seeks irrelevant records, and is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant argues Plaintiff claims emotional distress damages and thereby put her mental health at issue.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

SOL XAVIER DE LA CRUZ VS JONATHAN DEREK ROMERO ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

DAMION YOUNG V. IDB MEDIA GROUP, INC.

TuneCore is a digital music distribution company. It provides artists and music producers with a digital solution to distribute music worldwide to top stores like iTunes, Amazon Music, Spotify, and Google Play. With a TuneCore account, artists and producers get detailed sales and daily iTunes, Spotify and Amazon Music reports.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2017

ROZITA AKHAVAN VS WHOLE FOODS MARKET

Moving Party must make a reservation for the IDC using the Court’s online reservation system. Once Moving Party has confirmed an IDC date, they must use the Court’s online reservation system to continue the Motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

JOHN SOLANO VS YONG OK KIM ET AL

Plaintiff argues this request invades his right to privacy due to it being overbroad. Here, there is no dispute Plaintiff has a constitutional right to privacy regarding his medical records. Where a party brings a personal injury action, however, the Court must determine the extent to which that right to privacy has been waived.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2018

MARCELA CARRILLO VS RYAN SHANNON ET AL

The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v.

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

WILLIAM M. DORFMAN DDS VS PATTI CANTOR ET AL

Dorfman must make a reservation for the IDC using the Court’s online reservation system. Once Dorfman has confirmed an IDC date, Dorfman must use the Court’s online reservation system to continue this motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date. Counsel are ordered to bring with them whatever materials are needed to make this Court-ordered meet-and-confer session productive and successful, e.g., any documents which may be the subject of an assertion of a privacy, privilege or other objection.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2017

LAUREN KATTUAH VS. BRADLEY KRAMER ET. AL.

Kattuah must make a reservation for the IDC using the Court’s online reservation system. Once Kattuah has confirmed an IDC date, Kattuah must use the Court’s online reservation system to continue this motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date. The parties are ordered to bring with them whatever materials are needed to make this Court-ordered meet-and-confer session productive and successful, e.g., any documents which may be the subject of an assertion of a privacy, privilege or other objection.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2017

MEDAL VS. FLORENCE CRITTENTON SERVICES ORANGE COUNTY

., that such documents are directly relevant to the issue of causation of plaintiff’s emotional distress damages, which is so strong as to outweigh plaintiff’s privacy rights when these two competing interests are carefully balanced. Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216, 229. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.