Dennis J. Landin
(Subscribe to View)
May 10, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
BRISKIN LANG & PENE APC - Attorney for Deft/Respnt
DOES 1 TO 50 - Defendant/Respondent
GALVEZ GENOVEVA - Plaintiff/Petitioner
LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION - Defendant/Respondent
SHAGRAMANOV VLADIMIR ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
May 03, 2018
Oct 31, 2017
Youngmee Merrick Vs Eunhee Choi
Cardconnect, Llc Vs Platinum Touch Insurance Services, Inc., Et Al.
Arch Cbt Spe, Llc, Et Al. Vs Energy Efficient Equity, Inc., Et Al.
Mehdi Manzari Vs Bmw Of North America, Llc, Et Al.
Steven Markoff Et Al Vs Bank Of America Et Al
Roderick Gaines Vs Harvey Cloyd, Et Al.
Armen Boladian Et Al Vs George Clinton Et Al
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Llp, A Limited Liability Partnership Vs Vikas Dhanker, Et Al.
Viviriana Guatemala Vs Erika Derias, An Individual, Et Al.
Aurelio Rodriguez, Et Al. Vs Nissan North America, Inc., A California Corporation
MOVING PARTY: Defendant LA County MTA RESPONDING PARTY: None Motion for Protective Order The court considered the moving papers. BACKGROUND On May 31, 2017, plaintiff Genoveva Galvez filed a complaint against defendant LA County MTA for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on January 17, 2017. On November 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Trial is set for November 30, 2018. LEGAL STANDARD Protective orders may be granted on motion of the deponent or any party, or any third person who could be affected by the disclosure (e.g., a nonparty whose privacy would be impaired). CCP §2025.420(a). A formal noticed motion and hearing are always required. A protective order cannot be granted ex parte. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 82, 85-86. The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable ........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.