California Rules Court 2.550 - Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits

Useful Rulings on Application for Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits

Recent Rulings on Application for Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits

HORN VS TGI FRIDAY'S INC

The Court agrees with Tyler Mall that it has met the first three prongs of Rule 2.550(d). The Court finds that the need to keep private its security protocols are substantial, and the need to keep this information private overrides any public interest.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must weigh the competing interests and concerns. This process necessitates (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public disclosure, (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC VS MARK WOOD

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) A motion seeking an order sealing records must be accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) MB seeks to seal the entirety of the opposition’s Exhibit 5 to the declaration of C. David Buckalew, which is a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement between NASI and a third party. (Motion to Seal at p. 10.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JANE DOE VS DAVID DANON

(CRC Rule 2.550(c).) However, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550-2.551. “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b).) Plaintiff filed on July 27, 2020 an Application to File under Seal with Plaintiff’s Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

PROFICIENCY CAPITAL LLC VS CORONA CLAY COMPANY

To comply with the United States and California Constitutions, the court must make express factual findings to seal records under the Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d): (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

BRIAN SANDERS VS TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT

If Respondent wishes the declaration or portions of it to be sealed, Respondent must file the declaration conditionally under seal along with a motion to seal pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et. seq. Petitioner’s arguments in reply are mostly unpersuasive. (Reply 1-7.) Petitioner points out that Respondent’s initial response on August 13, 2019, was based on Government Code sections 6254(c) and 6255(a), not section 6254(f). (Reply 1; see Sanders Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B, C.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL VS. CASPAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (c) states: “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” Nevertheless, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rule of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1) states: “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

KRAFVE VS. KARFVE

(California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibits D, I, and O pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). However, the Court declines to take judicial notice of hearsay statements contained in the court’s records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564.) Plaintiff shall give notice of all motions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, ET AL. V. SENTINEL LABS, INC., ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) But in actions for trade secret misappropriation, the court “shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include … sealing the records of the action ….” (Civ. Code, § 3426.5.) The usual sealing rules described above do not apply to records such as these, which “are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

KOK CHYE TAN VS PETER LIN

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

TRINHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE CORP VS TRANSFORM KM LLC, ET AL.

(CRC 2.550(d).) Overriding interests include: the right to a fair trial (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Locke) (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178); protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment (Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County (1982) 457 U.S. 596, 607); protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to testify (Rovinsky v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CALIFORNIA CREDITS GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NORTH AMERICAN CLIENT SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(CRC Rule 2.550(d).) The order sealing the record must (1) specifically state the facts supporting the findings and (2) direct the sealing of only those documents and pages that contain the material needed to be placed under seal. (CRC Rule 2.550(e)(1).) All other portions of the documents or pages must be included in the public file. (Ibid.) Defendants move for an order sealing Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael B. Patchett.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION FUND VS STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VALLEJOS V. SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER

Thus, plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2551, which require a court order based on specific factual findings before documents may be filed under seal. As a result, the court strikes the documents that were filed provisionally under seal and refuses to consider them in making its ruling. Plaintiff has also improperly objected to defendant’s undisputed material facts, as opposed to objecting to specific parts of defendant’s evidence.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCHINI VS D'SYLVA

California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d). A declaration containing facts sufficient to justify sealing the document is required. California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1). Vantage seeks to seal documents that reference the contents of an agreement between it and Inland Empire and a copy of the actual agreement between the parties on the basis that the agreement contains a confidentiality clause.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Rule of Court ("CRC") 2.550(d); see also Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 471, 506-08.) The court grants Vergara’s unopposed motion to file her reply papers under seal. II. Standard for Motions for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication “Summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

ALEXANDRO FILIPPINI V. JEAN AVRICK

Any document marked “CONFIDENTIAL” that is filed with the court shall be filed under seal pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551. Request #13 seeks documents “sufficient to show all income and revenue plaintiff earned since 2010. Plaintiff’s response was: “Objection. This request is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Legal Standard California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c) states that “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” A party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rules of Court Rules 2.550-2.551. “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

EAST WEST BANK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. F33072215/301, ET AL.

Under Rule 2.550(c) “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” The rules for sealing records “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” The rules “do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.” CRC Rule 2.550(a)(3); NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Motion to Seal Legal Standard California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rules 2.550 and 2.551 govern records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC Rule 2.550(c).) A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record. (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

NAJJAR VS. GOLDSTEIN

The Court evaluates the Motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

HAMILTON VS. ASTRAZENECA

Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) As a practical matter, however, the court requests that in the future, the parties should still make a motion to seal so that the court's record reflects what is sealed and what is not in advance of hearing on a motion. Alternatively, if the motion to be heard is a discovery motion, the court would also consider a stipulation from the parties. Notwithstanding the above, the court clerk is instructed to seal the lodged papers pertaining to these three motions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HAMILTON VS. ASTRAZENECA

Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) As a practical matter, however, the court requests that in the future, the parties should still make a motion to seal so that the court's record reflects what is sealed and what is not in advance of hearing on a motion. Alternatively, if the motion to be heard is a discovery motion, the court would also consider a stipulation from the parties. Notwithstanding the above, the court clerk is instructed to seal the lodged papers pertaining to these three motions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JANINE M YODER VS MAHYAR OKHOVAT, MD AND INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

CRC rules 2.550 and 2.551 require that the requests to seal be made in those departments. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the Request for Production, Set One, Request for Production, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, are GRANTED. Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED. Defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ROBERT MECAY ET AL VS SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ET AL

Production of such documents will be subject to a protective order in which the documents may not be used or disclosed except in connection with this litigation and shall not be filed with the court except in compliance with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 for documents to be lodged or filed under seal. The limitation on time is for purposes of these responses only.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 68     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.