18 Cited authorities

  1. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 290 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.
  2. Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Co.

    80 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a physician-patient privilege did not exist where a sperm donor visited sperm bank in order only to sell his sperm and not for diagnosis or treatment of any physical or mental ailment
  3. Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (Allen E. Botney)

    15 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 1, 6 (1975), the court found that the language of the Revenue and Taxation Code reflected a clear legislative intent that tax returns be treated as privileged in order to encourage full and truthful declarations.
  4. Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    32 Cal.App.4th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that paragraph (B) of rule 2-100 applies only to persons employed at the time of the communication
  5. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 26 times
    Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act
  6. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    22 Cal.4th 245 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 37 times
    Affirming rule announced in Beverly Hospital
  7. Colonial Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    31 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 60 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that based on California's version of Rule 26(b), encompassing an identical minimal relevance standard, "Colonial's suggestion that the discovery of other insureds whose claims were negotiated by Sharkey will not yield relevant, admissible evidence, is patently meritless"
  8. Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 31 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

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

    53 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 32 times
    Requesting party bears burden to determine "the manner in which [the responding party] maintains its records"
  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 2017.010 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Allowing discovery of relevant non-privileged material
  12. Section 2030.300 - Motion for order compelling further response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300   Cited 94 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if answer is evasive or incomplete, or if an objection is without merit or too general
  13. Section 2030.290 - Failure to serve timely response; motion for order compelling response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290   Cited 72 times
    Mandating sanctions "against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust"
  14. Section 2030.010 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010   Cited 22 times

    (a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable

  15. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 29 times

    (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) To compel answers at a deposition;