11 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 221 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"
  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. Deyo v. Kilbourne

    84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 151 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.
  4. Argaman v. Ratan

    73 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 64 times
    Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney
  5. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (Western Albuquerque Land Holdings, LLC)

    243 Cal.App.4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution"
  6. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 29 times
    Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act
  7. Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (Allen E. Botney)

    15 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 97 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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"
  10. 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