A Rape victim sued her perpetrator and his mother under a fictitious name alleging fraudulent transfers after she obtained a civil judgment. She verified discovery responses using the fictitious name and the trial court granted motions ordering further discovery responses, using her true name. The Court of Appeal reversed. Code Civ. Proc. §2015.5 requires that declarations […]
Reviewing Opponent’s Privileged Documents May Lead To Attorney Disqualification.
Where law firm obtained opponents’ privileged documents which were protected by the attorney-client privilege and used these documents, the trial court properly disqualified the law firm. Where lawyers receive documents that are obviously privileged, they can only examine them to the extent necessary to determine the privileged character of the documents and immediately notify the sender that […]
Complying With Grand Jury Subpoenas Stored Communications Act Protects Companies.
Yahoo! Inc., a digital media company, was served with a grand jury subpoena from a Georgia district attorney requiring the disclosure of any and all records regarding the identification of one of its users. Yahoo! complied, and the user brought a putative class action against Yahoo! claiming various statutory provisions, and because the information was produced […]
No Life Preserver To Save Non-Appealable Order.
Plaintiff’s case was dismissed as a terminating sanction following discovery abuse. Plaintiff appealed and defendant argued the appeal was from a non-appealable order. In his appellate brief, plaintiff told the appeals court his appeal “was timely filed following Entry of Judgment in this matter.” Even though appellate courts often permit a premature appeal and treat it […]
An Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum May Issue By The California Corporations Commissioner To Subpoena Witnesses In Order To Investigate Violations Of The Corporate Securities Law.
Believing that a corporation might be engaged in violations of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 [CSL; Corporations Code section 25000], the California Corporations Commissioner issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of certain documents. When all of the documents were not forthcoming, the Commissioner subpoenaed the custodian of records, and the corporation refused to […]
Lawyer Must Produce Client’s Tax Returns.
Tax returns prepared by an accountant were turned over to the civil tax lawyer for the person being investigated by the IRS. The civil lawyer turned them over to a lawyer for the firm providing representation for the criminal tax investigation. That lawyer turned them over to the partner in charge of the criminal defense. The […]
Sanctions Order Reversed After Grant Of Summary Judgment Affirmed.
Plaintiff, a corporation, propounded special interrogatories to defendant. Defendant did not provide answers because it contended plaintiff, as a suspended corporation, lacked the capacity to prosecute the action. The trial court agreed and awarded monetary sanctions to defendant. Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. The appellate court affirmed the grant […]
Japanese Resident May Not Be Compelled To Give Deposition In California.
Toyota Motor Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Stewart) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; July 27, 2011) (As Mod. July 28, 2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, [130 Cal.Rptr.3d 131; 2011 DJDAR 11254] resolves an apparent conflict between California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1989 and 2025.260. Section 1989 provides that a person is not obligated to attend as […]
Privacy Rights Trump Litigation Tactics.
In a wrongful termination case, the plaintiff intended to present statistical information to develop a disparate impact claim. He asked for the names of all employees terminated during a certain period, the department where each worked, the age of each, the reason for each termination, whether severance benefits were offered and, if so, if they […]
County Must Disclose Billing Records Relating To Attorney Fees Charged For Defending County.
A lawyer requested documents under the California Public Records Act [CPRA, Government Code §6250 et seq.], and the County argued the records were not subject to disclosure because they were attorney-client communications, they were attorney-work product and they were exempt under the CPRA’s pending litigation exemption [§6254(b)]. After ordering the County to redact certain portions […]
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next Page »