Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The first line of California’s Constitution (after the Preamble) establishes that “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights...[including] privacy.”
Effective since July 1, 2004, California Business and Professions Code §§ 22575-22579 require that commercial entities on the Internet who collect California-based users’ “personally identifiable information” post a conspicuous privacy policy, which must contain several clauses.
Under BPC §22577(a), “personally identifiable information” includes:
Under BPC §22577(b), the privacy policy must be “reasonably accessible,” including:
Under Under BPC §22575(b), the privacy policy must:
The CCPA’s legislative findings indicate that California’s Constitutional Privacy right (supra) includes “the ability of individuals to control the use, including the sale, of their personal information.” Thus the Act not only further regulates users’ right to disclosure by online entities who collect and trade their personal data, it grants users the right to request their data not be sold and even the affirmative right to have it deleted upon request.
The CCPA applies to business entities of all types (including subsidiaries) that:
“Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Notably, “personal information” does not include publicly available information.
The CCPA grants online users “The right to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105(a).
Moreover, sub (b) and (c) of § 1798.105(b) provide that the online entity must:
There are exceptions. An online entity can keep the data if it’s “necessary” to:
Generally
Whether or not the sharing of user data with advertisers or other third parties will be “reasonably anticipated within the context of a business’s ongoing business relationship with the consumer” is likely to be hotly contested. But in any case, the CCPA grants users an opt-out: “[Users have t]he right, at any time, to direct a business that sells personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell the consumer’s personal information.”
“Do Not Sell My Personal Information” Disclosure
Businesses are required to provide information explaining and facilitating the opt-out:
After the user’s opt-out, businesses must refrain from contacting a user for 12 months before again requesting that the user authorize the sale of their personal information.
Personal Data of Minors and Opt-In
As a catch-all, online entities with knowledge of users’ ages are prohibited from selling the personal information of individuals less than 16 years of age.
However, users less than 16 years of age can opt-in to the sale of their personal information upon consent of:
No Discrimination Against Users For Exercising CCPA Rights
In order to preserve its impact, the CCPA prohibits businesses from discriminating against users who exercise their rights under the Act. This includes:
However, businesses can offer differential prices, rates, levels and quality if the difference is “reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.”
Users’ Financial Interest In Their Personal Data
Perhaps most intriguing about the CCPA is its formalization of a market for personal data by granting users a pecuniary interest in their own personal data.
Businesses can offer financial incentives, including payments to consumers, for the collection, sale or deletion of personal information, provided:
The CCPA imposes broad and detailed disclosure requirements on Internet entities that collect users’ personal data, far exceeding the extent offered by previous California law.
Prior to any collection of personal data, the Act requires the online entity to disclose:
Moreover, users can request that covered businesses disclose:
In response to such a user request, the online entity must disclose the info, inter alia:
As stated supra, businesses must provide disclosures explaining and facilitating the opt-out by consumers from the sale of their personal information:
Online businesses engaged in a “single, one-time transaction” are not required to retain personal data if they: Do not sell it; or Link to it “in a manner that would be considered personal information.”
Online businesses that reveal users’ personal information for a “business purpose” (an operational purpose of the businesses reliant upon that information) must disclose those business purposes upon request by a user. Such purposes may include:
In order to comply with the Act, online entities that collect personal data must provide and notify users of at least two methods for submitting disclosure requests, including: A toll-free phone number; and An Internet Web site.
The business’s Privacy Policy must disclose all of the users’ rights:
The policy’s information must be updated at least once every 12 months.
The Act can be enforced both publicly and privately.
The California AG can enforce the CPAA:
Private Cause of Action
The CPAA provides private actors (including class plaintiffs) with an action to seek:
AG Notification: The user / plaintiff must notify the Attorney General 30 days after filing the action, after which the AG can:
Many California cases involving an online “Privacy Policy” depend on enforceability (particularly arbitration and forum selection clauses), and the court’s determination of whether a user’s Website use constituted agreement to the privacy policy.
The analysis court’s analysis often involves the distinction between
“Browsewrap” - wherein links to the Privacy Policy are available but a user is not required to “click” on them in order to use the site; or
“Clickwrap” - wherein the user is prevented from using the site until affirmatively “clicking” on an acknowledgement that the Privacy Policy applies and is available for review.
Notably, a user need not have actual notice of the Policy (i.e., need not have in fact clicked or read the policy); constructive notice of its existence and availability is often sufficient.
“There is evidence that prior to completing payment at the time plaintiffs booked their vacation on defendant’s website the final booking screen required the user to review a check list that expressly included a requirement that the user acknowledge he or she read and accepted the Rules and Restrictions, Terms of Use and privacy policy; and there were imbedded hyperlinks to allow full review of the terms of use and privacy policy that were in a different color than the other text on that final booking screen. (See Declaration of Pinglang Wang in Support of Motion, paragraphs 3 and 4; and Exhibit A.) The hyperlinks were not hidden. In fact, they were highlighted in blue in the sentence on the final booking screen that stated: “By selecting to complete this booking I acknowledge that I have read and accept the above Rules & Restrictions, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.” The “COMPLETE BOOKING” button is below that sentence...The court finds that the agreement was an enforceable clickwrap agreement.” Beland v. Expedia, Inc. PC-20160434 (8/10/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/PC-20160434/beland-v-expedia-inc/201708103830f6).
“It is undisputed that Plaintiff created an account to use Uber services in October 2015, and that Plaintiff had to register. After entering account information and payment information, Plaintiff had to click a “Register” button as the last step. Underneath the Register button was the statement: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy,” with the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy (“T&C”) being hyperlinked. (Declaration of Jose Diepa, Exh. A.) Contained within the T&C was an arbitration agreement stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of relating to the T&C or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof or the use the Services would be settled by binding arbitration…
“At issue is whether the hybrid “clickwrap” and “browsewrap” agreement on Uber’s application was sufficient to put Plaintiff on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract. The agreement here was neither strictly clickwrap nor strictly browsewrap. Based on the screenshots submitted by Uber, Plaintiff was required to click a “Register” button in order to create his account and use Uber services. Below the “Register” button was the sentence: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy” and the T&C was hyperlinked. This sentence would put a reasonably prudent person on notice that clicking the “Register” button communicated assent to the T&C.” Shayan Fadaee vs. Uber Technologies, Inc. Et Al, BC681145 (4/19/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC681145/shayan-fadaee-vs-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/20180419261416).
“However, at issue is whether the hybrid “clickwrap” and “browsewrap” agreement on HomeAway’s website was sufficient to put Kathryn on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract. The Court concludes that HomeAway has met its burden of showing a valid arbitration agreement exists. The agreement here was neither strictly clickwrap nor strictly browsewrap. Based on the screenshots provided by HomeAway, Kathryn was required to click a “Continue” button in order to confirm her reservation. Directly above the “Continue” button was the sentence: “By clicking ‘Continue’ you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy” and the T&C was hyperlinked. This sentence would put a reasonably prudent person on notice that clicking the “Continue” button communicated assent to the T&C.” Kathryn Gurley Et Al vs. Mario Gandelsonas Et Al, BC663217 (2/6/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC663217/kathryn-gurley-et-al-vs-mario-gandelsonas-et-al/20180206513642).
“The Terms of Use here are of the “browsewrap” variety. A browsewrap agreement does not require a user to actually click on the terms to confirm his/her assent, unlike what is known as a “clickwrap” agreement. As one court has explained: Unlike a clickwrap agreement, a browsewrap agreement does not require the user to manifest assent to the terms and conditions expressly ... [a] party instead gives his assent simply by using the Web site...’ [Citation.] Indeed, ‘in a pure-form browsewrap agreement, “the Web site will contain a notice that—by merely using the services of, obtaining information from, or initiating applications within the Web site—the user is agreeing to and is bound by the site's terms of service.” ’ [Citation.] Thus, ‘by visiting the Web site—something that the user has already done—the user agrees to the Terms of Use not listed on the site itself but available only by clicking a hyperlink.’ [Citation.] ‘The defining feature of browsewrap agreements is that the user can continue to use the Web site or its services without visiting the page hosting the browsewrap agreement or even knowing that such a Web page exists.’ [Citation.] ‘Because no affirmative action is required by the Web site user to agree to the terms of a contract other than his or her use of the Web site, the determination of the validity of the browsewrap contract depends on whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a Web site's terms and conditions. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F. 3d 1171, 1176 (“Nguyen”). Here, it is undisputed that in order for Plaintiff Laura Thompson to purchase the concert tickets, she was required to acknowledge the Terms of Use at least twice. Thus, when she created her account (which every user must do to make a purchase), she accessed the ‘Create My Account‘ page, which contains the statement, immediately above the button to ‘Sign Up’: “By submitting, you agree to our Terms and Purchase Policy, and understand your information will be used as described in our Privacy Policy…’ The words/phrases, ‘Terms,‘ ‘Purchase Policy,‘ and ‘Privacy Policy‘ are in blue text, different from the other parts of the sentence. After creating an account, each time that a user goes on Ticketmaster’s website to access their account, a welcome/sign-in screen appears, which, similar to the others, states: ‘By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Use.‘ Finally, a user of the website is not able to complete a purchase without encountering a screen that states: ‘By clicking ‘Place Order‘, you agree to our Terms of Use,‘ with ‘Terms of Use,‘ again in blue, different from the rest of the text. Contained within those Terms of Use are the following provisions regarding arbitration: Disputes, Including Mandatory Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Any dispute or claim relating In any way to your use of the Site, or to products or services sold or distributed by us or through us, will be resolved by binding arbitration rather than in court…’
“As evidenced above, the “browsewrap” agreement at issue does not require a user to actually click on the Terms of Use to confirm his/her assent, unlike what would occur with a “clickwrap” agreement. (See Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855, 858.) Rather, assent is inferred by the use of the website; thus, ‘the determination of whether a binding browsewrap agreement has been formed depends on whether the user had actual or constructive knowledge of the Web site's terms and conditions…’ As to actual notice, Plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that they did not read the Terms of Use and were not aware of the arbitration language. Accordingly, the key issue is whether there was constructive notice. The standard for constructive notice is whether the Terms of Use were sufficiently conspicuous to have put a reasonably prudent internet user on notice of Ticketmasters’ terms. (See Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855, 863 (‘we must decide whether the design of the ProFlowers.com Web site and/or the conspicuousness of the hyperlinks to the Terms of Use were sufficient to put a reasonably prudent Internet consumer on inquiry notice of the browsewrap agreement's existence and contents.’).) Here, there is language advising the user that by clicking the buttons to create and access his/her account and purchase tickets, the user agrees to the Terms of Use. Further, in each part of the account setup and ticket-purchasing process, the link to the Terms of Use is present in a different color text setting it apart from the rest of the text. While the font is not particularly large, it is not so small that it is buried on the page. ‘Where the website contains an explicit textual notice that continued use will act as a manifestation of the user's intent to be bound,’ courts are generally amenable to enforcing browsewrap agreements. Nguyen, supra, p. 1177. The court in Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc., supra at 867, confirmed this principle: “to establish the enforceability of a browsewrap agreement, a textual notice should be required to advise consumers that continued use of a Web site will constitute the consumer's agreement to be bound by the Web site's terms of use.’ Defendant required users, including Mrs. Thompson, to affirmatively agree to the Terms of Use no less than twice every time a user would log in to his/her account to purchase tickets. By purchasing the tickets through the website, she was on constructive notice of those Terms.” Thompson Vs. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 30-2018-00976153-CU-BT-CXC (5/4/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/30-2018-00976153-CU-BT-CXC/thompson-vs-live-nation-entertainment-inc/2018050445e7b4).
“In addition, the reply papers contain Mr. Chen's supplemental declaration, in which he explains the manner in which Plaintiff assented via a check box during the application process. His declaration includes a screenshot, and he states that the "Services Agreement, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy are hyperlinked to this page next to the check box, as indicated on this screen shot by their appearing in blue text.
“This is sufficient evidence that Plaintiff assented to the terms of the "Service Agreement," which include the arbitration provision. The hyperlink was conspicuously placed directly adjacent to the acknowledgment check box, and highlighted in blue. Thus, Defendant presents sufficient evidence of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.” De Moya Vs Rev.Com Inc, 37-2018-00041472-CU-OE-CTL (1/3/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/37-2018-00041472-CU-OE-CTL/de-moya-vs-revcom-inc/2019010322a287).
“Defendant argues that a demurrer should be sustained as to Plaintiff’s claim because Defendant complied with § 1978.83(c)(2) by adopting and disclosing “a policy of not disclosing personal information of customers to third parties for the third parties’ direct marketing purposes unless the customer first affirmatively agrees to that disclosure.” CC § 1798.83(c)(2).
“Defendant’s privacy policy is attached as Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff’s complaint and can, therefore, be considered by the Court. The policy does not comply with the requirements of § 1798.83 (c)(2). The phrase “direct marketing” does not appear anywhere in the Privacy Policy. There is no provision requiring the customer’s agreement before information is provided.
“Further, the second paragraph of the policy reads as follows: ‘Please know that Tillys will never disclose your personal information to any third party, unless it is necessary to provide you with products or services from Tillys or as otherwise described in our Privacy Policy…’
“That language could be interpreted as suggesting that information may be disclosed to third parties for unspecified reasons.
“In addition, the policy also contains the following language: We may allow third-party companies to serve ads or collect certain information about you when you visit the Sites. These companies may use browsing information (e.g., click stream information, Web browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to the Sites and other web sites in order to provide advertisements about products and services likely to be of interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or other technology to collect this information....Defendant’s privacy policy does not adopt “a policy of not disclosing personal information of customers to third parties for the third parties’ direct marketing purposes unless the customer first affirmatively agrees to that disclosure.” The demurrer is overruled on this ground.” Gonzales Vs Tilly’s Inc., 30-2018-00999952-CU-BT-CXC (1/25/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/30-2018-00999952-CU-BT-CXC/gonzales-vs-tillys-inc/20190125616bb0
Insurance company files regarding an insured or claimant are protected by statute (Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, Ins. C. §791, et seq.). Disclosure of any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction is restricted. (Ins. C. §791.13.) Defendant has not filed an opposition to this noticed motion.
SARA HANDO PAPA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS FRANK SCHLIFF, AN INDIVIDUAL
23STCV08256
Oct 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Although companies have some measure of privacy protection, the right of privacy arising from the California Constitution applies to individuals, not to companies, (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §8:297). Determining the discoverability of company documents that have some privacy protection requires the court to balance the need for privacy with the relevance of the information sought. (Id., §8:297.5).
JACKSON V. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A., ET AL.
FCS048950
Feb 26, 2019
Solano County, CA
Issues Presented The following issues are presented by way of the motion: · Is the settlement agreement entitled to privacy protection? · Is the settlement discoverable under Evidence Code §1152? · Is the settlement discoverable as an admission by party opponent? · Is the settlement discoverable per CCP §877? · Is the settlement discoverable as potential impeachment evidence? d. Analysis i. Is the Settlement Agreement Entitled to Privacy Protection?
SATOSHI FUJIMORI VS REGINA DEMATTEI
BC701120
Oct 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
To the extent that defendants objections are based on Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, they are overruled. As noted in Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741: "We find nothing in the Insurance Code provisions cited by defendants which would require a restrictive interpretation of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986. Defendants point to the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act. (Ins.Code, § 791 et seq.)
SALVADOR FALCONE VS. J.T. HARRIS INC
56-2010-00380030-CU-BC-VTA
Aug 30, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Defendant has a legitimate privacy concern as to its employees' information. Plaintiff relies on Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 for support that the privacy objections are without merit. "The contact information for [Defendant's] current and former employees deserves privacy protection." (Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561.)
TAPIA ARELLANO VS SOUTHCOAST WELDING & MANUFACTURING LLC
37-2019-00030405-CU-OE-CTL
Feb 13, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiff have shown that the information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that any privacy protection should yield in favor of disclosure. If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312 or further notice is required.
ADAN V. WONG
CVPO16-603
Aug 31, 2017
Sonia Cortés
Yolo County, CA
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.
DAVID LOPEZ VS BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL
BC688041
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
"California accords privacy the constitutional status of an 'inalienable right, on par with defending life and possessing property" and the "privacy protection ... embraces sexual relations." Vinson v. Super. Ct., 43 Cal. 3d 833, 842 (1987). Asking Flood – a minor at the time – about her personal sexual and dating relations is protected and probably not even relevant to the issues in this case. Also, questions regarding a third party's sexual relationships (Ambrose) are also protected privacy.
DOE VS. THE VONS COMPANIES INC
37-2016-00005866-CU-WT-CTL
Nov 14, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
This is Annie's privacy protection. However, the information may be disclosed at the request of the owner or in response to a valid court order or subpoena. Section 4857(a)(3). Plaintiff cites Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc. which involved drug testing of college athletes with reduced expectations of privacy.
KATHRYN DAVIS VS. HUMPHREY, GIACOPUZZI & ASSOCIATES EQUINE HOSPITAL
56-2010-00373367-CU-PN-VTA
May 12, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant Stephenson also objects on grounds of privacy protection. The Court finds that the training and vehicle policies/training come within privacy protection, but are discoverable as there is no less intrusive means or alternative means to obtain such information other than from defendant Stephenson or defendant Marina Landscape.
NEESE VS MARINA LANDSCAPE INC
RIC1905776
Nov 17, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Former employee contact information requires privacy protection. The demand for information about other lawsuits is overbroad.
ALEESA ADAMS VS. DIGNITY HEALTH
56-2018-00521155-CU-WT-VTA
Aug 06, 2019
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Document production beyond what Tilt has agreed to provide in response to this request is overbroad in light of the peripheral relevancy of Tilt's financial condition and the fact that nonpublic financial information has privacy protection. Tilt's financial condition doesn't excuse nonpayment legally. Tilt doesn't try to claim that its financial condition does excuse nonpayment legally. Hearing required as to O'Melveny's request for compliance.
TILT HOLDINGS, INC. VS. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP ET AL
CGC20586137
Sep 02, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
The Insurance Information Privacy Protection Act (Ins. Code §791.01, et seq.) prohibits an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization from disclosing any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena. (Ins. Code §791.13(h.)
LIBORIO VS CLOSE
RIC1803006
Jul 16, 2018
Riverside County, CA
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.
DAVID LOPEZ VS BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL
BC688041
Nov 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The circumstances do not support privacy protection over the records at issue. Even if the CID and Condo Services had protectible privacy interests in the requested information, moving parties fail to establish that those interests justify denial of relevant discovery. First, moving parties rely on outdated case law requiring a compelling interest when a privacy objection was raised. As stated in Williams v. Supr.
MICHAEL REACH VS JOHN SPAHI, ET AL.,
SC124263
Nov 19, 2020
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
CCP section 1985.6 provides that privacy protection to employees. If the subpoenas are permitted, then Plaintiffs will be given access to employee's private contact information and payroll records. "The contact information for [Defendant's] current and former employees deserves privacy protection." (Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561.)
FLOWER VS SYCAMORE SUSHI INC
37-2018-00045082-CU-OE-CTL
May 30, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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. The showing required to overcome the protection depends on the nature of the privacy right asserted; in some cases, a simple balancing test is sufficient, while in others, a compelling interest must be shown. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35.)
KJERSTI FLAA VS ALEXANDER KOTLARENKO, ET AL.
21STCV36943
Jul 25, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
A confidential settlement agreement is entitled to privacy protection, similar to the privacy interests in bank account or tax information. Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241, 242. Generally, confidential financial information is protected by the right to privacy set forth in the California Constitution. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656; Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 480-81; Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.
SIMPSON LAW GROUP LLP VS HANSEN
37-2016-00012625-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 01, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Medical records are protected by the right of privacy. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 119.) A plaintiff partially waives this privacy protection by filing a lawsuit, but the scope of such waiver must be narrowly construed to prevent deterrence from instituting lawsuits. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3 833, 840.)
MORGAN VS COGSWELL
CVRI2203898
Jul 11, 2023
Riverside County, CA
A person’s work history (e.g., names of employers, dates of employment, job titles, full or part-time) is protected by a right of privacy. (Alch v. Sup.Ct. (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 CA4th 1412, 1426-1427.) Unlike privilege, the privacy protection afforded is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery. (In re Clergy Cases I (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1235.)
ERJAVEC VS GBC CONCRETE AND MASONRY CONSTRUCTION INC
CVRI2102753
Sep 20, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Insurance company files regarding an insured or claimant are protected by statute (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”; Ins. C. § 791.01 et seq.). Disclosure of “any personal or privileged information gathered or received in connection with an insurance transaction” is restricted. [Ins.
O’GRADY VS. STRICKLAND
30-2016-00858949-CU-PA-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
As to the unrelated deposits /withdraws, JJW argues that they are protected by privacy. JJW is incorrect that privacy is a “privilege”. Unlike privilege, the protection afforded is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery.
RICHMOND CITY CENTER VS JJW CAPITAL PARTNERS
30-2017-00959834-CU-BT-CJC
May 02, 2019
Orange County, CA
Here, Defendants fail to demonstrate any "good cause" for failing to raise their "Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act" objection, their objection based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection, their "not reasonably particularized" objection, and their "privacy rights" objections in their Moving Brief. As a result, to the extent Defendants are asserting their own rights through these objections, they have waived those rights by failing to timely assert them.
MORALES VS WELL-PICT
56-2016-00481672-CU-TT-VTA
Aug 31, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Defendant also argues that the subpoena to Miller improperly seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and the Insurance and Privacy Protection Act. A party opposing a motion to quash must show good cause for having sought the production in the first place. ( See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Thiem Industries, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.)
MARCOS MANZANARES VS CLARENCE ALLEN
20STCV18195
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Likewise, accepting defendant Ashjian’s own contention about the nature of plaintiff’s claim here, the court must protect, not ignore, plaintiff’s right to associational privacy. Defendant Ashjian also cites to a federal district court case, Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education (E.D. Cal. 2016) 2016 WL 4375015, as support for piercing the privacy protection here.
FRESNO WATCHDOGS FOR ETHICAL BIDDING V. BROOKE ASHJIAN
17CECG02900
Jan 08, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
App. 4th 733, 741, the Court stated:"We find nothing in the Insurance Code provisions cited by defendants which would require a restrictive interpretation of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986. Defendants point to the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act. (Ins.Code, § 791 et seq.) That act is part of this state's regulation of the business of insurance.
RICARDO GUZMAN VS. ESTRADA TRUST
37-2017-00011833-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 28, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241 [confidential settlement agreements entitled to privacy protection: plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of compelling need for the information to be entitled to invade that protection].)
BROOKEY V. TINOCO, ET AL.
30-2018-00998701-CU-PA-CJC
Feb 07, 2020
Orange County, CA
Because P is entitled to privacy of medical records (John B. v. Superior Court [2006] 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198); and even in this personal injury case, P is still entitled to privacy of physical or mental conditions unrelated to the injuries sued upon. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 854. While D opines other unstated conditions may be medically related to P's fall, mere speculation is inadequate to overcome the privacy protection and should not make D the arbiter of that determination.
LUCINDA SESSIONS VS. JACK IN THE BOX INC
56-2009-00344094-CU-PO-VTA
Aug 31, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097 (“personnel records and employment history are within the scope of the protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions”).) Where privacy protection applies, the protection is qualified, not absolute. (Britt v. Sup.Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) “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.
JAMES A KAY JR VS ROBERT MILLS
BC620344
Mar 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment records are within the scope of the privacy protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions. See Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 9-10; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 530. This privacy interest is recognized by CCP §1985.6, which requires advance warning and a specific warning to employees when employment records are sought by subpoena. The constitutional right of privacy also applies to a party's medical records.
DUNN VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
37-2018-00012659-CU-WT-CTL
Aug 02, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Employment records are within the scope of the privacy protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions. See Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 9-10; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 530. This privacy interest is recognized by CCP §1985.6, which requires advance warning and a specific warning to employees when employment records are sought by subpoena. "The right to privacy, however, is not absolute.
LOPEZ VS AMERICAN HEARING HEARING AND CENTER OF THE SOUTH BAY INC
37-2019-00031125-CU-WT-CTL
Dec 17, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
State Farm further objects based on the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act ("IPPA"), which restricts the release of insureds' information. IPPA appears to adopt a mandatory consent requirement for release of information, while plaintiff argues for implied consent by failure to object. For the latter point, plaintiff relies on a non-insurance decision not involving IPPA. More importantly, State Farm relies upon State Farm v.
JOHN MARK CHARNON VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
CGC17556772
Jul 28, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
The privacy concerns can be ameliorated through appropriate redaction of the customer names and other private information. As for trade secret protection, defendants have not established an identifiable and protected trade secret. Civ. Code §3426.1(d) Defendants only argue that the Track Day Sponsorship Agreements effect FMSD's sale prices and resultant profits.
ILKO VS FM SAN DIEGO LLC
37-2019-00043150-CU-BC-CTL
May 26, 2023
San Diego County, CA
ANALYSIS Generally, “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. . . . 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.
ALIZA NICHOLE HARPER, ET AL. VS PAYAM BENJAMIN KOHAN, ET AL.
20STCV01240
Jul 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741 [The Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act applies to, and restricts, information gathering practices and disclosures of information by insurers. It does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit.
LAUREN ROSHANKASHANI VS PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV26608
Nov 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
While Insurance Code § 791.02(v) provides a definition of "privileged information" for purposes of the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, Plaintiff offers no authority as to the scope of protection afforded to the information Defendants seek via these subpoenas. The case Plaintiff relies on, Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
SERNA VS ISLANDS RESTAURANTS LP
37-2020-00006441-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 19, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
App. 4th 233, 241 [confidential settlement agreements entitled to privacy protection: plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of compelling need for the information to be entitled to invade that protection].) Discovery will not be ordered if the information sought is available from other sources or through less intrusive means. (Rutter, CPBT at §8:321, citing Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 447, 449, and Britt v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at 856.)
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. RAINBOW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
30-2017-00940457-CU-PL-CJC
Nov 21, 2019
Orange County, CA
The constitutional right of privacy applies to a party's medical records. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198. Unlike certain of the statutory privileges, privacy protection is not absolute. "On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery." Vinson v.
VIRGINIA HOOVER VS. DIGNITY HEALTH
56-2016-00481136-CU-OE-VTA
Nov 30, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023 EVENT DATE: 08/11/2023 EVENT TIME: 10:30:00 AM DEPT.: C-68 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S.
BAPTISTE VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
37-2022-00012259-CU-OE-CTL
Aug 11, 2023
San Diego County, CA
A person has a constitutional right to privacy in their estate planning documents. See Estate of Gallio (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 592, 598 (“The trial court properly concluded that stepmother’s will and testamentary papers fell within the privacy protection set forth in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution.”). A person also has a right to sexual privacy. See Boler v. Superior Court (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 473.
SUMNER M REDSTONE VS MANUELA HERZER ET AL
BC638054
Aug 01, 2018
Robert L. Hess or Patricia D. Nieto
Los Angeles County, CA
The right to privacy set forth in the California Constitution extends to one’s financial records. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) The right to privacy may be abridged only when there is a compelling and opposing state interest. (Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526, 532.) One such compelling public need lies in facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal claims. (Id.)
STEPHANIE OLIVER VS MICHAEL NELSON DE LA CRUZ DDS
VC065490
Feb 22, 2018
LORI ANN
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
The Hinshaw Court found a private settlement agreement is entitled to at least as much privacy protection as a bank account or tax information, and held that the moving party failed to make a sufficient showing of compelling need for the information in the settlement agreements to be entitled to invade that protection on the basis of public policy favoring settlements, the parties expressed desire for confidentiality, and the speculative nature of measuring damages by the amounts awarded in settlements.
TEODULO CASTELLANOS, ET AL. VS PINNACLE ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV25657
Apr 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Privacy Protection Defendant has established that the financial records sought by Plaintiff (nos. 1-17, 22-23, 26) encompass confidential records not only of itself but of its clients. (Phillips Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8.) Plaintiff’s request for loan applications by Defendant and its agents manifestly includes financial information (no. 29). The right of privacy contained in the California Constitution (Art. 1, § 1) does not apply to corporations.
KARIMI V. CARDFLEX, INC., ET AL.
30-2019-01045281-CU-OE-CJC
Dec 06, 2019
Orange County, CA
ANALYSIS Generally, “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. . . . 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.
ANDREA ROTHSTEIN VS 2016 ARGYLE, LLC
20STCV40899
Jul 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Supreme Court “established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. 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.
JO F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC646534
Dec 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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. The showing required to overcome the protection depends on the nature of the privacy right asserted; in some cases, a simple balancing test is sufficient, while in others, a compelling interest must be shown. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35.
STEVEN BLACK VS MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
BS173967
Nov 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
That information is afforded privacy protection and is different from requesting general witness identification information. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1200 [the intrusion upon sexual privacy may only be done on the basis of practical necessity (internal quotations omitted)].) California has codified a persons unalienable right to privacy in its Constitution. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)
MARIA VASQUEZ VS INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, ET AL.
22STCV24594
Jun 15, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion is therefore DENIED as to the 1st cause of action. 2nd cause of action for violation of privacy “To state a claim for violation of the constitutional right of privacy, a party must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; and (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest. Four distinct kinds of activities have been found to violate this privacy protection and give rise to tort liability.
ILAN DAVID VS BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV14467
Jan 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Discovery regarding the former employer has probative value to overcome plaintiff's privacy interest. Current Employers (Avema Pharm Development, LLC): Motion to quash GRANTED except for limited information regarding plaintiff's salary and benefits. The employment information is to be provided to plaintiff's counsel, who will produce records regarding salary and benefits. Medical information. Motion to Quash DENIED with respect to emotional distress. Privacy protection extends to medical records.
HANTASH VS. INTERTEK USA INC
37-2017-00015893-CU-OE-CTL
Jun 28, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiff asserts the subpoena seeks information protected under the Insurance Information and Privacy Act, Insurance Code section 791.01 et seq, information protected by Ramirezs constitutional right of privacy, and information irrelevant to the litigation.
HUMBERTO RAMIREZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
21STCV07295
May 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, the information provided in an insurance file would include information protected by the right of privacy. See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 68; see also Insurance Code §§ 680 et.seq. (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”). This could include personal data such as dates of birth, social security numbers etc.
ASHMORE, ET AL. VS. MITCHELL, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198731
Oct 30, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Further, the information provided in an insurance file would include information protected by the right of privacy. See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 68; see also Insurance Code §§ 680 et.seq. (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”). This could include personal data such as dates of birth, social security numbers etc.
ASHMORE, ET AL. VS. MITCHELL, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198731
Oct 29, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Further, the information provided in an insurance file would include information protected by the right of privacy. See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 68; see also Insurance Code §§ 680 et.seq. (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”). This could include personal data such as dates of birth, social security numbers etc.
ASHMORE, ET AL. VS. MITCHELL, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198731
Oct 31, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Further, the information provided in an insurance file would include information protected by the right of privacy. See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 68; see also Insurance Code §§ 680 et.seq. (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”). This could include personal data such as dates of birth, social security numbers etc.
ASHMORE, ET AL. VS. MITCHELL, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198731
Nov 03, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Further, the information provided in an insurance file would include information protected by the right of privacy. See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 68; see also Insurance Code §§ 680 et.seq. (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”). This could include personal data such as dates of birth, social security numbers etc.
ASHMORE, ET AL. VS. MITCHELL, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198731
Nov 02, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Further, the information provided in an insurance file would include information protected by the right of privacy. See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 68; see also Insurance Code §§ 680 et.seq. (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”). This could include personal data such as dates of birth, social security numbers etc.
ASHMORE, ET AL. VS. MITCHELL, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198731
Nov 04, 2022
Shasta County, CA
(Fairbairn Depo., 29:16) Private financial information is worthy of protection in discovery. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656–657.) The need for such discovery is balanced against the need for privacy protection in resolving such disputes. When seeking to discover such material, the proponent must make a higher showing of relevance and materiality than would be necessary for less sensitive material. (Id. at 657.)
TOBEY ARIETTA VS. ROCK N ROBLES, INC.
30-2018-01034181-CU-OE-CJC
Mar 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
But that is not the case where the person or persons whose privacy rights are at stake is not the responding party. “The privacy protection extends to the unknown, unnamed female partners of Boler who have neither executed a waiver nor are even necessarily aware their privacy interests are endangered by the deposition question.
TURNER-HUGUET V SANDONE
19CECG02225
Mar 16, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
When it comes to making a determination concerning the privacy protection, the burden is on the party seeking discovery, who must show a “particularized need for the confidential information sought.” (Id. at 859-862.) The court must be convinced that the information is directly relevant to a cause of action or defense … i.e., that it is essential to determining the truth of the matters in dispute. (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 859-86; Harris v. Sup.Ct. (Smets) (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)
REYES VS COHN
RIC1708834
Oct 22, 2018
Riverside County, CA
SCE argues that the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement should be upheld based on the privacy protection afforded to settlements (See e.g. Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241 [The privacy of a settlement is generally understood and accepted in our legal system] disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS HERMAN WEISSKER INC., ET AL.
20STCV44140
Aug 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The right to privacy tort was recognized in 1890 based on the trend in tort law to extend protection to " 'the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent [a person's] thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others.' " (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 23, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) In other words, the tort protects "a 'right "to be let alone." ' " (Ibid.) In 1972, the right to privacy was added to the California Constitution by initiative.
A D VS THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE LLC
37-2017-00005774-CU-MC-CTL
Aug 11, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Everlink responded with boilerplate objections, including relevancy, overbreadth, attorney-client privilege, work product protection, privacy, trade secret, etc. and refused to produce documents. The parties dispute relevancy of the documents.
PIMENTEL VS ANTONIO
CVRI2105287
Mar 29, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Moreover, Plaintiff argues that any potential privacy concerns can be addressed through redaction or a protective order. The court agrees. The interrogatories seek relevant information that does not evoke strong privacy protection, and any potential privacy concerns are adequately addressable via a protective order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted as to special interrogatories nos. 13-16, 19-21, and 23-24.
DUFFIN VS PITA BROTHERS INC
37-2022-00008417-CU-WT-CTL
Mar 03, 2023
San Diego County, CA
The question, which Plaintiff must answer, is whether the terms of a “confidential” settlement are entitled to any protection against civil discovery, and if so, whether that protection is absolute or qualified. In California, discovery is purposefully broad.
KATHLEEN F CARPENTER ET AL VS MICHAEL J GUNSON MD DDS ET AL
19CV06237
Jul 13, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
When it comes to making a determination concerning the privacy protection, the burden is on the party seeking discovery, who must show a “particularized need for the confidential information sought.” (Britt v. Sup. Ct., supra, 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-862.)
WOLF VS MADADIAN
RIC2000888
Feb 22, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The California Supreme Court in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 addressed similar privacy concerns. "The contact information for [Defendant's] current and former employees deserves privacy protection." (Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561.) The court in Belaire-West endorsed a notice procedure whereby employees could opt out of having their contact information disclosed. (Id. at 561-562.)
ZAVIS VS. PROSPECT FINANCIAL GROUP INC [E-FILE]
37-2019-00055880-CU-OE-CTL
Sep 01, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Privacy Protection Defendants’ other concern is financial privacy. Even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s inalienable right of privacy provided by the California Constitution, Article I, section I. (Britt v. Sup. Ct. (San Diego Unified Port. Dist.)(1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) Personal financial information is within the “zone of privacy.” (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct. (Barkett) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657; John B. v.
YYC MANAGEMENT INC. VS LIN
CVRI2204845
May 10, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The information sought appears to include confidential information contained in employees’ personnel file and as such, are subject to privacy protection. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention that he seeks the identity and contact information of “percipient witnesses” which is not subject to privacy protection, the persons whose information are sought are not “percipient witnesses” of alleged discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff, but are persons who are believed to have suffered similar injuries.
EJIOFOR VS. CO OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1709304
Mar 11, 2019
Riverside County, CA
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.
LUIS H. RODRIGUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
18STCV03039
Feb 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
When it comes to making a determination concerning the privacy protection, the burden is on the party seeking discovery, who must show a “particularized need for the confidential information sought.” (Britt v. Sup. Ct., supra, 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-862.) Defendants have articulated a particularized need for medical records relating to conditions placed at issue by Plaintiff. On balance, Defendants are entitled to medical and psychological information in order to properly prepare for trial.
MCLAUGHLIN VS DOE 1, CORPORATION P, A UTAH CORPORATION SOLE
CVSW2201173
Jun 14, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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.)
IVORY VS SANDERS-DIVERS
CVRI2101509
Aug 01, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.)
IVORY VS SANDERS-DIVERS
CVRI2101509
Aug 02, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.)
IVORY VS SANDERS-DIVERS
CVRI2101509
Jul 31, 2021
Riverside County, CA
However, [e]ven if information is otherwise discoverable, it may be protected by a constitutional or statutory privilege[,] [including] the right to privacy . . . . ( Board of Nursing, supra , 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039.) The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right to privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. . . .
LITA ABELLA VS STADCO LA, LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV07480
Jan 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Regarding factor one. a settlement agreement is entitled to "at least as much privacy protection as a bank account or tax information." (Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 233, 241, disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Sup.Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531.) Neither party disputes that this is a settlement agreement at issue in the disputed discovery.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PORTSIDE 503 TRUST
PTR19302898
Apr 21, 2021
ELIF SONMEZ
San Francisco County, CA
Generally, [t]he state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. . . . 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.
MARY-CARMEN GALARZA VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21STCV31189
Sep 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.
ERICA MARIE SABINIANO VS ETHAN JOSIAH CASTRO, ET AL.
20STCV38089
Aug 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Generally, “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. . . . 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.
BRIDGETTE BREWSTER VS F RAMOS, ET AL.
21STCV06469
Aug 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Confidential settlement agreements such as this one are to be afforded privacy protection, which serves the public interest favoring settlement, and the parties’ desire that the agreement be confidential. That interest supports sealing the minor’s compromise here, and would be thwarted if the record is not sealed. The parties’ interest in keeping the terms of this minor’s compromise confidential overrides the public interest in access.
M.C., A MINOR VS. CAROL HALL, ET. AL.
TC028573
May 03, 2018
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Graton Fire Protection District Defendant Graton Fire Protection District’s motion to compel further document production is GRANTED. Defendant has not requested sanctions; therefore, none will be imposed. (See CCP § 2023.040.) Defendant’s counsel shall submit a written order consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule 3.1312. I. Governing Law “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” (Lopez v.
ALVAREZ VS GRATON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
SCV-269950
Aug 09, 2023
Sonoma County, CA
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.” The party seeking information “may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves.” Then, the party seeking protection may “identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.”
HENDRICKSON V. MCCOLLUM, ET AL.
30-2019-01097248
Oct 02, 2020
Orange County, CA
.) ¶ The “informational privacy” protection is qualified and requires that a court balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 564.) “There must be a compelling and opposing state interest justifying the discovery. [Citation.]
DIDION V. DIDION
PFL-20140145
Oct 26, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
Individuals have a right to privacy in medical information under the California constitution. (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 679.) Contrary to Plaintiff's contention, no legal authority suggests that the identities of treatment providers are somehow excluded from the privacy protection afforded by the California Constitution.
SALMON GONZALEZ VS. KEVIN SCOTT TACK
56-2016-00478482-CU-PA-VTA
Nov 02, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Protection Act ¿ because ¿ the Act prohibits the release of insurance documents, data, recorded statements, and any other information relating to or evidencing communications between an insurer, the insured, and other third parties, which relate to a claim for insurance benefits of a civil or criminal proceeding and is collected ¿ in connection with or in reasonable anticipation of a claim for insurance benefits, a civil proceeding, or a criminal proceeding.¿ (Insurance ¿ Code § 791.02, ¿ subd .
20STCV031833
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Generally, “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern. . . . 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.
THERESA HINES VS BELL PARTNERS, INC., A CORPORATION
20STCV33065
Oct 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 791, 796-797 [the constitutional right of privacy does not apply to corporations].) In addition, the court in Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741, held that the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act “applies to, and restricts, information gathering practices and disclosures of information by insurers. it does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit.”
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC., ET AL. V. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY
30-2018-01027345
Jul 24, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas violate his right to privacy because his medical records are entitled to privacy protection, except as to those conditions that Plaintiff has directly placed at issue. Plaintiff’s action is largely based on disability discrimination.
VREJ NASHALIAN VS MISSION CITY COMMUNITY NETWORK INC
BC609514
Feb 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
A person has a constitutional right to privacy in their estate planning documents. See Estate of Gallio (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 592, 598 (“The trial court properly concluded that stepmother’s will and testamentary papers fell within the privacy protection set forth in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution.”). Further, a person’s “confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of [his] personal life” are likewise protected from public disclosure by the California Constitution.
SUMNER M REDSTONE VS MANUELA HERZER ET AL
BC638054
Aug 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Such information is generally discoverable, subject to privacy protection for the putative class members. Pioneer, 40 Cal.4 th at 373. To protect the class members’ privacy, they should be given the right to object to (“opt-out” of) disclosure of their identities and contact information. A written notice approved by the court accomplishes this purpose (called, not surprisingly, a “Belaire-West Notice”). Pioneer, 40 Cal.4th at 373.
NELSON VS KARAS FOOD, INC
CVRI2101350
Aug 26, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Finally, even if there were still some privacy protection over decedent’s call records, the records are directly relevant to the identification of potential percipient witnesses, not just of events leading up to decedent’s death, but decedent’s quality of life, which is material to any claim of damages as a result of his untimely death. The privacy right at issue here is also not fundamental to personal autonomy, and Defendants are not required to establish a compelling interest to justify production.
TERRY TOM ET AL VS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC ET AL
BC665696
May 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
This information is sensitive and subject to constitutional privacy protection. The court finds that there is an overriding interest in the privacy of these sensitive records that overcomes the right of public access to these records. The court finds that the overriding interest in protecting the privacy of this sensitive information supports sealing the records.
LOUISE FRADENBURG VS UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY ET
1401650
Jul 25, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
The right of privacy is not an absolute privilege, and the decision whether to allow discovery as to records subject to the right or privacy requires either a balancing test, or a showing of a compelling interest, depending upon the nature of the privacy interest. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35. Generally, the privacy rights of third parties are given more protection than those of litigants.
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. RIVER WEST HOMES, INC
30-2011-00516665-CU-CL-CJC
Apr 06, 2018
Orange County, CA
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. The showing required to overcome the protection depends on the nature of the privacy right asserted; in some cases, a simple balancing test is sufficient, while in others, a compelling interest must be shown. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35.
OSIRIS GAONA VS JOSE ACOSTA
BC699876
Apr 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant lays sufficient evidentiary foundation to assert absolute work product protection. CCP §2018.030(a). Plaintiffs fail to submit any argument or evidence that would overcome application of absolute work product protection.
TERRY TOM ET AL VS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC ET AL
BC665696
Jun 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The right of privacy is protected by Article I, section I of the California Constitution. However, the right to privacy is not absolute and even private information can be disclosed in some circumstances. The court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need of discovery. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)
MATHEWS VS AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.
CVRI2203421
Sep 26, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The right to privacy tort was recognized in 1890 based on the trend in tort law to extend protection to " 'the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent [a person's] thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others.' " (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 23, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) In other words, the tort protects "a 'right "to be let alone." ' " (Ibid.) In 1972, the right to privacy was added to the California Constitution by initiative.
A D VS THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE LLC
37-2017-00005774-CU-MC-CTL
Jul 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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. 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. Sup.Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530.) However, even where privacy protection applies, the protection is qualified, not absolute.
SONIA VALENCIA VS DOLLAR TREE STORES INC ET AL
BC615696
Dec 20, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court sees no meaningful distinction as between the privacy protection afforded to the address and telephone number of each patient. Communications with Class Members Neither party will be permitted to contact any absent class member during the notice period.
D'ANGELO SANTANA VS RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL-SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]
37-2014-00022411-CU-MT-CTL
Dec 20, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Even if there is little to no privacy protection over Plaintiff HP’s records, Defendants/Cross-Defendants fail to establish grounds to find the tax return privilege waived or inapplicable. The tax return privilege is a separate and distinct basis to withhold disclosure of tax returns from privacy. See Fortunato , supra , 114 Cal.App.4 th at 479-482. Document Request No. 4 is quashed. 5.
HP GROUP G.C. INC. VS SHAHAB BINAFARD, ET AL
SC129418
Jul 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Privacy of Confidential Settlement Agreements In Hinshaw, et al. v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. App. 4th 233 (1996) ("Hinshaw"), the court held, as a matter of first impression in California, that confidential settlement agreements are entitled to privacy protection given the strong public policy favoring settlements. (See Hinshaw, 51 Cal.
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
BC626803)
Jul 31, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.