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

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

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

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • 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

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

TOHME R. TOHME VS JOHN BRANCA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON, DECEASED,, ET AL.

., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988, paragraph breaks omitted (quoting California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)).) The sealed records rules “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, 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.” (California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

HOUSER VS. ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED

On the other hand, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has met his burden to satisfy the elements of Rule 2.550. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to seal the proposed settlement documents is DENIED. _____ Plaintiff's Application to approve the terms and conditions of the settlement is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court, once again, commends counsel for resolving a difficult case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HOUSER VS. ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED

On the other hand, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has met his burden to satisfy the elements of Rule 2.550. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to seal the proposed settlement documents is DENIED. _____ Plaintiff's Application to approve the terms and conditions of the settlement is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court, once again, commends counsel for resolving a difficult case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS UPTOWN LOUNGE INC

To the extent that such documents are to be used or disclosed in connection with any non-discovery motion or court proceeding, the parties shall comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, with the documents for which confidentiality is asserted being lodged provisionally under seal and the party asserting confidentiality required to file a motion to seal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CARDOSO VS. DATA CLEAN CORPORATION

(CRC 2.550(d).) A party seeking to seal records may not rely on a “mere agreement of the parties to seal documents filed in a public courtroom.” Rather, there must be “a specific showing of serious injury.” (Universal City Studios, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1281-82.) II. Analysis The notice of lodging includes two exhibits. Exhibit A is a document titled “Sexual Harassment Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BINGHAM VS. ACORNS GROW, INC.

That being said, defendants have established the criteria set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KERRI K. VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The moving papers establish sufficient grounds under CRC 2.550. Counsel are directed to submit the order in accordance with Section X of the electronic filing order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ANDREW KENYON VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).) A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.) Cityview asks this court to seal an unredacted declaration of its counsel which reveals the amount paid pursuant to a settlement reached between Cityview and Andrew, a settlement they claim contains a confidentiality provision.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ABBEY RESTAURANTS AND BARS USA-LA, LLC, ET AL. VS MICHAEL GOSS

Under California Rule of Court 2.550(d), a court record can only be sealed if (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 means exists to achieve the overriding interest.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Accordingly, moving party must demonstrate by way of a factual declaration or affidavit that all of the CRC Rule 2.550(d) requirements for sealing have been met. ¿ CRC Rule 2.550(d) factors: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record: In terms of the overriding interest requirement of a closure or sealing order, NBC Subsidiary identifies two separate elements. The first element requires the identification of an overriding interest.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MONA MIRAKHOR VS LYFT, INC, ET AL.

Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551 for filing under seal. Insofar that Plaintiff is requesting an order compelling production of documents, that order would be premature as Defendant has agreed to produce documents after a protective order is in place. Form Interrogatory No. 14.1: Defendant states that discovery is continuing and that a supplemental response will be provided at a later time. The Court does not see how this response is deficient.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MANUEL CRUZ VS EDUARDO LLAMAS CABRERA

(CRC 2.550(d).) Overriding interests include: the right to a fair trial (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Indeed, the Stipulated Protective Order itself specifies at ¶ 16 in pertinent part: “Where any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules.” Here, moving party has not demonstrated by way of a factual declaration or affidavit that all of the CRC Rule 2.550(d) requirements for sealing have been met.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Defendants move for the Court to seal these documents pursuant to the parties’ October 3, 2019 Confidentiality Agreement and Stipulated Protective Order and California Rules of Court rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Protective Order Motion to Seal, at p. 3:10-11; RFPD Motion to Seal, p. 3:8-10; SROG Motion to Seal, p. 3:10-11.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Defendants move for the Court to seal these documents pursuant to the parties’ October 3, 2019 Confidentiality Agreement and Stipulated Protective Order and California Rules of Court rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Protective Order Motion to Seal, at p. 3:10-11; RFPD Motion to Seal, p. 3:8-10; SROG Motion to Seal, p. 3:10-11.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CAMACHO VS. GTOB LLC

While the Court understands the sensitivity of this information, some submission is necessary, even if it is submitted under seal pursuant to CRC 2.550. The parties need to address the consequences of failure to make any of the required installment payments. There are a number of options here, but they must be considered carefully by the parties. If a late payment is a material breach, this could void the entire settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

DOE G.F. V. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Pursuant to CRC 2.551(h)(4), “in determining whether to unseal a record, the court must consider the matters addressed in Rule 2.550(c)-(e).” Thus, in order to unseal, this Court must find that there is no longer an overriding interest in maintaining the records as sealed, the corollary of which might be that there is a possibility of prejudice to the public (or requesting party) if the seal order is not overturned.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

T S VS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

IN RE THE ESTATE OF NISHI KUNIKO, DECEASED

Rules of Court, 2.550, et seq.) What legal basis does the petitioner rely on to file the proof of service for Reiko Nishi as confidential?

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

KIM A. LE VS UNITED MEDICAL IMAGING INC.

The court cannot make the findings required by Rule 2.550 and the motion to seal is denied in its entirety.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

KIM A. LE VS UNITED MEDICAL IMAGING INC.

The court cannot make the findings required by Rule 2.550 and the motion to seal is denied in its entirety.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

AMY GOLDMAN VS TIMOTHY SCHEY, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 Plaintiff’s first cause of action is labeled as a violation of CRC Rule 2.550, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “managed to obtain party information from said case number [19SMCV01116] and used said information as a ground to unlawfully engage in preliminary eviction procedures against Plaintiff.” (Compl.¶ 11.) Plaintiff has not stated any cause of action. In fact, there is no cause of action based upon a violation of this Rule.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AUDREY CONTRERAS VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CORPORATION

The court, then, is inclined to deny DSC’s Sealing Request, without prejudice to DSC filing a CRC Rule 2.550 and 2.551 compliant motion or application within 10 calendar days from the June 25, 2020 hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.