Online Privacy in California

The Motion (ROA # 150) of Plaintiff Guillermo Mata ("Plaintiff") for an order to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories propounded to Defendant DIGITAL RECOGNITION NETWORK, INC. ("Defendant"), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

In essence, Plaintiff seeks an order directing nonparty online intermediaries to remove content from their platforms. Plaintiff seeks to do this without providing notice to the nonparty intermediaries. [1] The court cannot grant this relief. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C., § 230) (herein, Section 230) grants widespread immunity from suit to companies known as Internet Intermediaries (herein, Intermediaries) for content they publish online.

the California Invasion of Privacy Act – California Penal Code 632.7) in the Complaint by Plaintiff Silvia Garcia ("Plaintiff"), is sustained without leave to amend.

MOTION TO PERMIT ANONYMOUS INTERNET DISCOVERY Petitioner Dr. Misha Mutizwa (Plaintiff) is the plaintiff in an underlying out-of-state action taking place in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against various Doe defendants. The Complaint in the underlying action states that Plaintiff is a physician practicing in Ohio, who maintained an anonymous Twitter account that he uses to discuss reality television series. (Motion Exh. B (Complaint) ¶ 4.) Plaintiff amassed a large online following, and some critics.

Allegations in the Complaint Plaintiff Jose Gutierrez, a resident of California, is a consumer privacy advocate and tester who works to ensure that companies abide by the privacy obligations imposed by federal law. (FAC ¶ 4.) Defendant Bokf, NA, is an Oklahoma company that provides consumers access to online personal and commercial banking. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants website utilizes de-anonymization spyware from LeadFeeder to reveal the identity of visitors to the site.

Defendant contends that by clicking the "NEXT" button on the online offer webpage, Plaintiffs manifested assent to the terms of service, because elsewhere on the same page is language that reads: By clicking "next," you consent, acknowledge, and agree to the following: Our Terms and Conditions. Privacy Policy, and to receive important notices and other communications electronically.

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.

In addition, 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.

“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.

Barnes & Noble Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (Nguyen) [validity of an internet agreement "turns on whether the website puts a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract"].)

.)¿ 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.

In response, Plaintiffs argue Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that that the first clause of the CIPA is inapplicable because the communications occurred via the internet and the argument should be rejected. Plaintiffs argue courts routinely apply CIPA to internet communications such as the ones in this case. “Though written in terms of wiretapping, Section 631(a) applies to Internet communications.” (Javier v.

(RR Shoes) pursuant to a September 18, 2023, Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631) and (2) Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 632.7). The claims arise from the following allegations.

This court does not read California law as recognizing a bright-line rule that internet communications, as a matter of law, are not confidential. Defendant next argues that the claim is untimely under a two-year statute of limitations because the messages have been posted online since 2015.

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.

The defendant is requested on receipt of this Tentative Ruling to forward same in digital format to sbs@sbslawsf.com. As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Plaintiff alleges that the Nohr defendants recorded photos and videos of her inside her house in various stages of undress “and other reposes,” and that Bardessono published such photos and videos on internet websites.

The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to address the privacy interest raised by defendant, much less shown how documents related to “labor budgets” are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 288; Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 595; see Dauis Dec. [filed 1/30/2023], Ex.

The validity of an online "agreement turns on whether the website puts a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract." (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1171, 1177.)

The subpoenas were served on the following entities and requested the following documents: (1) UCLA Health Systems — “[a]ny and all medical documents, papers and digital records pertaining to the care, treatment, examination of VANESSA CHATFIELD”. (Wallen Decl., Ex. A at pp. 1-2.

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.

However, defense counsel did state Defendants’ willingness to enter into a Protective Order. ( Id. ) Privacy Plaintiff contends that the Subpoenas seek medical information protected by Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Plaintiff raises two main issues regarding the Subpoenas: (1) the Subpoenas are not limited in terms of the parts of the body at issue in this case; and (2) the Subpoenas request information from any and all dates.

Plaintiff contends that she has had difficulty in obtaining employment because the records for this case remain available via a public internet search of Plaintiffs name for nearly 7 years. She asserts that she cannot request to remove this information from the parties uploading this information to their public records websites internet search engines without an order from a presiding Judge.

The Court will not order Plaintiff to produce her entire internet and phone history over at most $25.00 per month (a quarter of her bills as calculated by Plaintiff in opposition). Plaintiff already has testified regarding how often she used these services for work, and has produced her phone bills. These requests are overbroad, and any further response would unnecessarily intrude on Plaintiffs privacy. The Court also declines to order Plaintiff to sit for a second day of deposition.

Plaintiff's argument that Section 632.7 should be extended to website internet communication is not reasonable. Legislation has not changed the scope of Section 632.7 despite regular amendments to statutes under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) since Internet usage became widespread in the 1990s. Chat features on websites have been around long before Section 632.7 was amended on January 21, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING: (1) PLAINTIFF JACLYN BRIZZI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC (SET ONE), (2) PLAINTIFF JACLYN BRIZZI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC (SET ONE), (3) PLAINTIFF JACLYN BRIZZI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC (SET ONE), and (4) PLAINTIFF

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) California Unauthorized Access to Computer Data Act, (2) California Invasion of Privacy Act, (3) California Invasion of Privacy, (4) intrusion upon seclusion, and (5) publication of private information.

Defendants have not met their burden to show a compelling need for additional discovery, i.e., 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.

On October 25 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 638.51), California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 631), Invasion of Privacy, and Intrusion Upon Seclusion. On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 638.51) RULING : Sustained with Leave to Amend. Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

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.

The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. ( Id . at 35–37.)

The Court finds that the subpoena is overbroad and violates Plaintiffs right to privacy. The Court quashes the subpoena served on Christie Digital. 2. Subpoenas served on schools Plaintiff does not acknowledge that Defendants withdrew the original subpoenas served on the schools on August 14, 2023, and issued new subpoenas to the schools on October 11, 2023. Plaintiffs moving and reply papers both address only the original set of subpoenas.

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.

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.

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the subpoenas: (1) violate Plaintiff right to privacy in his medical records an d seek records unrelated to his injuries, conditions, and body parts at issue in the case; (2) violate the physician-patient privilege and/or psychotherapist-patient privilege and the subpoenas are not narrowly tailored to address the documents pertinent to this case; (3) violate his right of privacy in financial information and documentation, as they seek billing, financial, and insurance records

Right to Privacy Discovery can be limited if it infringes on the right of privacy. The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. [Citation omitted.] In Hill , we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.

Full compliance with these requests would likely result in voluminous production of irrelevant materials, as well as production that unjustifiably intrudes into the third-party privacy rights of Feis employees and contractors. Yu has not adequately shown the relevance of the requested materials outweighs the privacy interests of third parties. DENIED. Yu may resubmit narrowed versions of these requests.

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.

The Legislature enacted the Invasion of Privacy Act to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state. ( Tavernetti v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 187, 193.)

In addition, 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.” Right to Privacy – Under Article I section 1 of the California Constitution, California recognizes a constitutional right to privacy. This right “protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” ( Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 166, 171.)

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.

Therefore, the invasion of privacy claims are adequately pled. II.

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.

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. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

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.

There was a good faith disagreement as to the timelines for production of digital information.

It is not clear how videotaping Defendant’s deposition will violate his privacy, threaten his personal safety, or reveal his address. Defendant says he fears his image and information from the video will be posted on the Internet and affect his confidentiality, image, and personal safety, but he does not explain why he thinks the video of his deposition will be disseminated.

Plaintiff alleges Desai violated her privacy by using her phone to post positive online reviews of himself. Finally, plaintiff alleges Ellenbogen sexually harassed her, making unwanted sexual advances. Defendants Desai and Ellenbogen each demurs and moves to strike punitive damages requests.

Plaintiff’s right of privacy is protected as to physical and mental conditions unrelated to the claim or injury sued upon. (Britt v. Sup. Ct., supra, 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) Mere speculation that some portion of additional records might possibly be relevant to some substantive issues does not outweigh the plaintiff’s privacy rights. (Davis v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.4th at 1017.)

This conduct allegedly violates California state laws (such as California’s Constitutional Right to Privacy; Intrusion Upon Seclusion, the California Online Privacy Protect Act of 2003 (CalOPPA), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §22575; the California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) (CCPA), Cal. Civ. Code §1798.120(c)); and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§6501-6506.

When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.) 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.)

YouTubes privacy objection also fails. Under Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 ( Williams ) privacy objections require a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. This threatened invasion is not serious. Williams held that e mployee contact information is personal but not particularly sensitive. ( Williams, supra , 3 Cal.5th at p. 553.)

(Digital Music News LLC. v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224.) The Court in Williams, supra, described that “Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) In Hill,we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.

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.)

The denied request implicates plaintiff’s privacy rights, and defendant may be able to accomplish its goals through less intrusive alternatives. A Status Conference is also set for today and will go forward. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

The identity of Spring Valley’s nonparty residents and their responsible parties is protected by their constitutional rights to privacy. (See Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 653–654 (protecting the identities and contact information for nonparty employees and former employees of defendant corporation).) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the nonparty contact information that they seek is directly relevant to their claims. (Digital Music News LLC v.

The requests at issue in Set Two are specific requests calling for the production of streaming agreements and digital content agreements between UMG and specific entities. They are neither vague nor ambiguous. Moreover, all of the requests at issue here seek documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. The parties agree and the court recognizes there may be valid confidentiality and/or privacy concerns related to the production of these documents in this litigation.

Plaintiff also expresses concern over his privacy rights. The right of privacy is an inalienable right expressly protected by Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. “[T]he right of privacy extends to one's confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of one's personal life.” Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 (1975).

And, contrary to Cross-Defendants’ arguments, the Cross-Complaint did allege that Cross-Defendants had a role in the publication of the online article. Specifically, the Cross-Complaint alleged “Cross-Defendants caused to be published on the Internet the following defamatory statement . . . .” (Cross-Complaint ¶ 29.)

LAPD has filed a response asking the Court to conduct an in-camera review of the records to balance MLKCH’s need for disclosure with plaintiff’s privacy rights under the California Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b) (known as “Marsy’s Law”). LAPD also is concerned that the records may contain information about other persons, who also have privacy rights. MLKCH does not oppose an in-camera review. Ruling The Court will conduct an in-camera review of the requested documents. Next dates: Notice:

California courts have affirmed the ability to proceed as a pseudonymous plaintiff under circumstances in which privacy rights are implicated. ( Doe v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 915, 919.) The judicial use of Doe plaintiffs to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web. ( Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1452, fn. 7.)

G00942031003, with DOL: 2/7/2020 including but not limited to: all photographs (digital and in color, if available), recorded statements, transcribed statements, written statements, medical records, collision repair records and receipts, repair photographs (digital and in color, if available), and repair estimates, any and all documents that refer to, evidence or reflect any onboard computer data download, system or other device (including but not limited to an Electronic Control Module, Vehicle Control Module

The anonymity of the accountholder of @comingsoon is protected by the First Amendment and the California constitutional right of privacy. See Krinsky , supra , 159 Cal.App.4 th at 1163; Ca. Const. Art. 1, §1; Digital Music News LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4 th 216, 228 (disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5 th 531, 557 (noting that right to speak anonymously draws its strength from both First Amendment and California constitution right of privacy).

The complaint alleges one cause of action for defamation based on a publication on defendant's website on the internet. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the posting to the complaint that shows it was posted on April 20, 2008. The statute of limitations for a defamation cause of action is one year from accrual of the cause of action. Civil Code section 3425.3 sets forth the single publication rule.

But, RSD’s argument that the right to privacy is implicated is undercut by the fact that the BWC footage was recorded at the scene of an accident in public. The right of privacy protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and only serious invasions will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that employers are told they "should establish a policy for the use of [e-mail and the Internet], which every employee should have to read and sign. First, employers can diminish an individual employee's expectation of privacy by clearly stating in the policy that electronic communications are to be used solely for company business, and that the company reserves the right to monitor or access all employee Internet or e-mail usage .

Michael Slater and Jennifer Johnsgard, or their attorneys, must turn the devices over to San Diego Digital Forensic by January 15, 2020 at 10:00 am. Michael Slater and Jennifer Johnsgard, or their attorneys, may retrieve the electronic devices 24 hours after the devices are delivered to San Diego Digital Forensic. With respect to the request to produce phone records, the Court orders that Michael Slater and Jennifer Johnsgard produce the phone records to the Court for in camera review.

RFPs 14 through 17: 14: A color photograph (or digital image) of each warning sign posted at the TimberMountain Log Ride on May 2, 2016. 15: A color photograph (or digital image) of each warning sign posted at the TimberMountain Log Ride at the present time. 16: A color photograph (or digital image) of any foot or leg bracing in the logs for the Timber Mountain Log Ride on May 2, 2016. 17: A color photograph (or digital image) of any foot or leg bracing in the logs for the Timber Mountain Log Ride at the present

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.

Statement of Facts Anode is a digital infrastructure provider optimizing global internet access. privacy and security. DeLisle Decl., ¶3. Anode is launching a VPN marketplace called AnodeVPN that matches VPN providers with VPN users. DeLisle Decl., ¶4. Users pay for access to AnodeVPN using a unique form of global cryptocurrency called PKT Cash, and VPN providers are paid in PKT Cash. DeLisle Decl., ¶5. PKT Cash can be acquired through a digital process known as mining. Id .

The right of privacy is an inalienable right expressly protected by Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. A party claiming “an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40 (1994).

The identity of Victor Valley’s nonparty residents and their responsible parties is protected by their constitutional rights to privacy. (See Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 653–654 (protecting the identities and contact information for nonparty employees and former employees of defendant corporation).) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the nonparty contact information that they seek is directly relevant to their claims. (Digital Music News LLC v.

reasonable privacy) in determining whether the information is discoverable. ( Ibid. ) Here, Plaintiff has established a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his records with the AIDS Health Foundation, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.

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.

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.

The court is not providing direct electronic access over the Internet by allowing users to view or download a record. See also committee notes which clarify that the rule prohibits the courts from "publish[ing] that information over the Internet." Advisory Com. com., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.503(c). The demurrer to the third cause of action for violation of CRC § § 2.507 (date of birth and driver's license) is sustained without leave to amend.

The Court finds that this compelling interest outweighs any privacy interest by Alatorre. First and foremost, Alatorre took no steps to protect his posts from any member of the public (including Plaintiff’s counsel) from reading them. In other words, Alatorre apparently did not “lock” his account to ensure that only his friends would read his posts. In that sense, Alatorre made a conscious decision to publicize his posts to the entire internet.

Mondin objected: “The subpoenas are overbroad and violated my privacy rights and the privacy rights of others identified in the documents. The subpoenas request disclosure of protected confidential information including my personal financial information and other consumer records.” Plaintiff asserts good cause for the records on grounds of a need to impeach Ms.

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.

This does not comply with the requirements of CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) as set forth in Calcor and Digital Music . The Court will thus deny the instant motion.

As the Court previously held in regard to the breach of contract cause of action, the privacy policy nor the terms and services language suggest that Defendant owes a duty to Plaintiff to always respond to requests from law enforcement. Because the covenant cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings, Plaintiff cannot allege duties or limits on Defendant that did not exist in the terms of services and privacy policy. ( Guz , supra , 24 Cal.4th at 349-350.)

Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution explicitly recognizes a right to privacy and California courts have recognized the right as supplying a qualified privilege to a discovery demand. “[T]he right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.)

Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution explicitly recognizes a right to privacy and California courts have recognized the right as supplying a qualified privilege to a discovery demand. “[T]he right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.)

Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution explicitly recognizes a right to privacy and California courts have recognized the right as supplying a qualified privilege to a discovery demand. “[T]he right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.)

Internet Tracking Litigation (9th Cir. 2020) 956 F.3d 589, 606 ["The ultimate question of whether Facebook's tracking and collection practices could highly offend a reasonable individual is an issue that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage."].) The demurrer is overruled as to the invasion of privacy cause of action.

Privacy The right of privacy in the California Constitution (art. I, § 1), “protects the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” ( Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [italics in original]; See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [“In Hill, we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.

However, he claims that [a] language barrier, lack of a computer, and no online access to financial and cell phone accounts have hindered his efforts. (Opp. 2:22-23.) Acevedo predicts that he should be able to produce the documents by May 9, 2022. (Opp. 2:23-24.) The motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 46-47 and 52-57 with a production date of May 9, 2022. III.

Second, by filing this motion, Rosello voluntarily provided his name and address, waiving any privacy rights in that information. As noted by Plaintiff, the only information that remains at issue is the specific IP address and Spectrum account attributable to Rosello. Plaintiff is not seeking Rosellos internet history or any other information relating to Rosellos account, only his name, physical address and the IP address and Spectrum account attributable to him.

““'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.)

The requests also implicate the privacy rights of defendants and their vendors. Although corporations do not have a constitutional right to privacy, they still have a right to privacy. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 756. Thus, the Court must balance the right to privacy with the potential relevance of the information sought. Id. Here, the relevance of the financial information does not outweigh defendants' privacy interests.

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. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

photographs; any and all video, audio and/or other digital recordings; and any other correspondence, notes, email and/or memoranda.

THE REQUEST INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ALL RECORDS STORED ELECTRONICALLY OR DIGITALLY SUCH AS THOSE ON COMPUTERS, COMPUTER HARD DRIVES, ZIP DISKS, CD ROMS, FLOPPY DISKS, TAPE DRIVES, AND ANY OTHER DIGITAL STORAGE MEDIA.

Confidential personnel files at a person's place of employment are within a zone of privacy. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530. Unlike privilege, privacy protection afforded is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery.

LAPD has filed a response requesting the Court conduct an in camera review of the records to balance Defendant’s need for disclosure with Plaintiff’s privacy rights under the California Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b) (known as “Marsy’s Law”). Defendant does not oppose this request. LAPD is also concerned that the records may information about other persons, who also have privacy rights. Defendant does not oppose an in camera review.

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.

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.

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