9 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 215 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 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.
  3. Advanced Modular Sputtering v. Superior Court

    132 Cal.App.4th 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 71 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"
  4. 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.
  5. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 28 times
    Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act
  6. 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.
  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. Cembrook v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 423 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 43 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.