§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum Points and Authorities

undefined

19 Cited authorities

  1. Shelton v. Tucker

    364 U.S. 479 (1960)   Cited 1,189 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclosure of every organization teachers had joined in the previous five years was not rationally related to the State's interest in determining their fitness and competency

  2. Britt v. Superior Court

    20 Cal.3d 844 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that patient "may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue"

  3. Vinson v. Superior Court

    43 Cal.3d 833 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 84 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no right for the attorney to attend the psychiatric examination and leaving that decision to the trial court's discretion

  4. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Requesting party bears burden to determine "the manner in which [the responding party] maintains its records"

  5. Unzipped Apparel v. Bader

    156 Cal.App.4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 16 times
    Recognizing 60-day time limit under section 2025.480, subdivision (b) applies to nonparty deposition subpoena requesting business records, just as it applies to a subpoena for an oral or written deposition

  6. California Shellfish, Inc. v. United Shellfish Co.

    56 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the losing party has the burden to show "substantial justification" under a discovery sanction statute, which uses the same language as section 405.38

  7. Section 210 - "Relevant evidence"

    Cal. Evid. Code § 210   Cited 2,966 times
    Defining relevant evidence

  8. Section 350 - Relevance

    Cal. Evid. Code § 350   Cited 1,600 times
    Providing only relevant evidence is admissible

  9. Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications

    18 U.S.C. § 2701   Cited 1,323 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"

  10. Section 2023.030 - Sanctions for misuse of discovery process

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030   Cited 487 times
    Providing for sanctions "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method"

  11. Section 2023.010 - Misuses of discovery process

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010   Cited 348 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining unsuccessful and unjustified opposition to a motion to compel as a misuse of the discovery process

  12. Section 2017.010 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Allowing discovery of relevant non-privileged material

  13. Section 1985.3 - Service on consumer whose records are being sought

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Subpoenaing consumer's personal records

  14. Section 20 - Judicial remedies

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 20   Cited 52 times

    Judicial remedies are such as are administered by the Courts of justice, or by judicial officers empowered for that purpose by the Constitution and statutes of this State. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 20 Enacted 1872.

  15. Section 1987.2 - Reasonable expenses in making or opposing motions

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2   Cited 45 times

    (a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (b) (1) Notwithstanding

  16. Section 2017.020 - Limiting scope of discovery by motion for protective order

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020   Cited 31 times

    (a) The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (b) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter