11 Cited authorities

Williams v. Superior Court
3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017) Cited 228 times 12 Legal Analyses
Concluding fear of retaliation cuts in favor of "facilitating collective actions so that individual employees need not run the risk of individual suits"
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.
Deyo v. Kilbourne
84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Cited 152 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Deyo, it was held that the materiality of questions propounded to a particular claim or a defense should be considered as a factor in assessing the propriety of entering a dismissal or a default judgment for failure to answer.
Argaman v. Ratan
73 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 64 times
Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney
SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (Western Albuquerque Land Holdings, LLC)
243 Cal.App.4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 28 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution"
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
Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (Allen E. Botney)
15 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1975) Cited 98 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.
Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
168 Cal.App.4th 165 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 24 times
In Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 165, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 321 (Pratt), the trial court found the defendant's actions "circumvented the established procedures for civil discovery under California law"; granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from conducting a disciplinary proceeding or from compelling the plaintiff to attend an extrajudicial medical examination; and awarded sanctions.
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"
Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court
16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997) Cited 32 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

Sheridan Pacific LLC vs. Ronnie Pritchett

11 Cited authorities

Concluding fear of retaliation cuts in favor of "facilitating collective actions so that individual employees need not run the risk of individual suits"

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.

In Deyo, it was held that the materiality of questions propounded to a particular claim or a defense should be considered as a factor in assessing the propriety of entering a dismissal or a default judgment for failure to answer.

Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney

Holding "corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution"

Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act

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.

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"