9 Cited authorities

Williams v. Superior Court
3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017) Cited 238 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 293 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.
Advanced Modular Sputtering v. Superior Court
132 Cal.App.4th 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 72 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that one of the purpose of the CCP §2019.210 disclosure is that "it enables defendants to form complete and well-reasoned defenses, ensuring that they need not wait until the eve of trial to effectively defend against charges of trade secret misappropriation"
Deyo v. Kilbourne
84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Cited 153 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.
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.
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 33 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
Cembrook v. Superior Court
56 Cal.2d 423 (Cal. 1961) Cited 44 times
In Cembrook the defendant objected to approximately 40 requests for admissions of facts, moving to strike the requests and to be relieved of the necessity of providing any answer.

Physician'S Surrogacy Inc vs Kenia German

9 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.

Holding that one of the purpose of the CCP §2019.210 disclosure is that "it enables defendants to form complete and well-reasoned defenses, ensuring that they need not wait until the eve of trial to effectively defend against charges of trade secret misappropriation"

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.

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"

In Cembrook the defendant objected to approximately 40 requests for admissions of facts, moving to strike the requests and to be relieved of the necessity of providing any answer.