§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

15 Cited authorities

  1. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.

    555 U.S. 7 (2008)   Cited 16,205 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"

  2. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.

    214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 608 times
    Holding that pseudonymous filing "runs afoul of the public's common law right of access" and allowed only when necessary "to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment"

  3. Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United

    112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 474 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contractual limitations periods "if reasonable are enforceable in suits under ERISA, regardless of state law"

  4. Doe v. Frank

    951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992)   Cited 350 times
    Denying plaintiff permission to proceed under a pseudonym sought due to his alcoholism

  5. IT Corp. v. County of Imperial

    35 Cal.3d 63 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that the presumption is rebuttable

  6. Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District

    187 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 35 times
    In Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 191, the court of appeal noted the common practice in California courts of using pseudonyms to protect privacy, and observed federal courts have likewise permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms "in special circumstances when the party's need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party's identity."

  7. Doe v. Indiana Black Expo, Inc.

    923 F. Supp. 137 (S.D. Ind. 1996)   Cited 53 times
    Recognizing that the "unusual practice" of proceeding under a fictitious name "has been permitted in exceptional cases where the party has a privacy right so substantial as to outweigh the 'customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings'" (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992))

  8. Parris v. Superior Ct.

    109 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Balancing privacy rights of putative class members against discovery rights of civil litigants

  9. San Francisco Unified School District ex rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc.

    213 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 22 times
    Noting that "[c]ase law and other legal authority clearly establish that the individual plaintiffs' contacts with [the defendant's] employees violated [the California equivalent of Rule 4.2] only if the contacts were wrongfully orchestrated by plaintiffs' counsel"

  10. Hurvitz v. Hoefflin

    84 Cal.App.4th 1232 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting broader scope of California Constitution but applying definition of “prior restraint” adopted by the Supreme Court in the First Amendment context

  11. Section 2

    Cal. Const. art. I § 2   Cited 474 times
    Restricting prohibition to state-licensed “mental health providers”

  12. Rule 5.165 - Requirements for notice

    Cal. R. 5.165   Cited 2 times

    (a)Method of notice Notice of appearance at a hearing to request emergency orders may be given personally or by telephone, voicemail, fax transmission, electronic means (if permitted), overnight mail, or other overnight carrier. (Subd (a) amended effective July 1, 2020.) (b) Notice to parties A party seeking emergency orders under this chapter must give notice to all parties or their attorneys so that it is received no later than 10:00 a.m. on the court day before the matter is to be considered by