§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

16 Cited authorities

  1. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co.

    529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 81 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a provider of e-mail services [is] undisputedly an [electronic communication service]"

  2. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 291 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Greyhound, the plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising from a car accident sought written statements that had been obtained from witnesses by the defendant's insurance adjusters and investigators.

  3. Dodge, Warren Peters Ins. Serv. v. Riley

    105 Cal.App.4th 1414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 75 times   2 Legal Analyses

    E031719 Filed February 5, 2003 Certified for Publication APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. RCV 060916, Ben T. Kayashima, Judge. Affirmed. The Greenberg Law Firm, Inc., and Raymond A. Greenberg for Defendant and Appellant James W. Riley. Law Offices of Perry R. Fredgant and Perry R. Fredgant for Defendants and Appellants Sandra L. McGovern, Patricia Anaya and Parthena Yorke. Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming Fitzgerald, Trenton J. Hill and Brian G. Mulherin for Plaintiff and

  4. Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc. (In re Zynga Privacy Litig.)

    750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 50 times
    Holding "referer header information ... transmitted to third parties .... does not meet the definition of ‘contents,’ because these pieces of information are not the ‘substance, purport, or meaning’ of a communication"

  5. Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (Timothy H. Joyce)

    197 Cal.App.4th 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Life Technologies, the appellate court reviewed a trial court order requiring a defendant employer to answer interrogatories requesting extensive and sensitive employee information—including the identity and contact information employees, the reasons for the termination of certain employees, and whether those employees were offered and/or accepted severance payments.

  6. Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc.

    885 F. Supp. 2d 987 (C.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding SCA permits AT&T to disclose subscriber information pursuant to subpoena, including date, time, originating and receiving telephone number for specified date range

  7. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act

  8. TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court

    96 Cal.App.4th 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding a diminished expectation of privacy in use of work computer when plaintiff signed a release allowing monitoring

  9. 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

  10. Coy v. Superior Court

    58 Cal.2d 210 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 84 times
    In Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cty., 58 Cal. 2d 210 (1962), the California Supreme Court considered whether an interrogatory that asked defendants, "When did you first discuss [plaintiff's] obligation to you with [counsel]?"

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,056 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  12. Section 2702 - Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

    18 U.S.C. § 2702   Cited 343 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Restricting use of Internet subscriber information without consent