§Why CasetextPricing

Alex Alvord vs. Anthony Dever

Opposition

13 Cited authorities

  1. Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp.

    805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 740 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an attempt to depose an attorney about documents her client possessed was protected by the work product privilege, as this knowledge would reflect her judgment as an attorney in identifying, examining, and selecting from her client's voluminous files those documents on which she relied in preparing her client's defense

  2. BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court

    199 Cal.App.3d 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that a court is "not reviewing the merits of a fraud cause of action" but is instead "reviewing the merits of a discovery order to determine if [a party] will have access to communications between [the opposing party] and its attorneys to aid [the party] in proving its causes of action."

  3. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    22 Cal.4th 245 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 40 times
    Affirming rule announced in Beverly Hospital

  4. Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. S057119. December 1, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MC006881, Ross Amspoker, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. COUNSEL Hennelly Grossfeld, John J. Hennelly and Susan J. Williams for Petitioners. Hugh F. Young, Jr., Jan S. Amundson, Harvey M. Grossman, Sherman Joyce, Crowell Moring, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Nabil W. Istafanous, D. Dudley Oldham, Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Alfred W. Cortese, Jr., Kathleen

  5. Carehouse Convalescent v. Superior Court

    143 Cal.App.4th 1558 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 18 times

    No. G037421. October 23, 2006. Appeal from the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 03CC12139, Sheila Fell, Judge. Wroten Associates, Inc., Kippy L. Wroten and Laura K. Sitar for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Wilkes McHugh, Robert John Chavez and Marissa A. Smeyne for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION SILLS, P. J. The adversarial system of justice presumes that the attorneys for each side oppose one another, not depose one another. We issue a peremptory writ because plaintiffs have failed

  6. Raytheon Co. v. Superior Court

    208 Cal.App.3d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 34 times
    In Raytheon, the targets of a government investigation into toxic contamination of real property shared attorney-client materials (correspondence, memoranda, reports) with one another, ostensibly in a cooperative effort to remedy the problem.

  7. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Superior Court

    198 Cal.App.3d 1487 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 34 times
    In Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1487 (Spectra-Physics), the court stated: “The circumstances under which opposing counsel may be deposed are limited to those where (1) no other means exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and not privileged; [and] (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.

  8. Stadish v. Superior Court

    71 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    In Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 350 (Stadish), the court held that the party's failure to assert a trade secret privilege in its initial discovery responses constituted a waiver.

  9. Franklin v. Allstate Corp.

    No. C-06-1909 MMC (EMC) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008)

    No. C-06-1909 MMC (EMC). February 29, 2008 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF RICHARD CANATELLA; AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Docket Nos. 156, 168) EDWARD CHEN, Magistrate Judge The motions came on for hearing on February 27, 2008. Having considered the papers and argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby orders as follows. As to the motion to compel, the parties agree that the matter of deposing opposing

  10. Merritt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.App.3d 721 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 31 times
    In Merritt, where plaintiff asserted a bad faith claim against an insurer, the court "held that plaintiff had impliedly waived his privilege since he had specifically put the state of mind of his attorney at issue by alleging that the defendant's attorney had confused his attorney and impeded his attorney's ability to settle his claim."

  11. Section R3109 - Notice of taking deposition on written questions

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3109   Cited 27 times

    (a) Notice of taking; service of questions and cross-questions. A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon written questions shall serve such questions upon each party together with a notice stating the name and address of the person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs, and the name or descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the deposition is