§Why CasetextPricing

In re Banc of California Securities Litigation,

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Banc of California and Certain Non-Parties to Produce Improperly Withheld Documents and Produce Amended Privilege Logs that Comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

7 Cited authorities

  1. Pac. Pictures Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California (In re Pac. Pictures Corp.)

    679 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 150 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “victim” did not have common legal interest with the government due to a “shared desire to see the same outcome in a legal matter”—i.e., a conviction; “[i]nstead, the parties must make the communication in pursuit of a joint strategy in accordance with some form of agreement—whether written or unwritten”

  2. North Pacifica, Llc. v. City of Pacifica

    274 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2003)   Cited 96 times
    Finding that communication with legal counsel related primarily to the seeking of legal advice is privileged.

  3. Board of Trust. Leland Stanford v. Roche Molecular

    237 F.R.D. 618 (N.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that where "the disclosures were made deliberately in order to secure a legal advantage," the scope of the waiver is broad

  4. Cotton v. Privatebank and Trust Company

    235 F. Supp. 2d 809 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "factual documents which give rise to suspicious conduct . . . are to be produced in the ordinary course of discovery because they are business records made in the ordinary course of business"

  5. Union Bank of California v. Superior Court

    130 Cal.App.4th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 21 times

    No. A107553 June 17, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Alameda County, No. RG03086160, Ronald M. Sabraw, Judge. Nixon Peabody, Paul J. Hall, Eric K. Larson and James D. Griffioen for Petitioner. Ernest C. Barrett III and Manpreet Singh for Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Bartko, Zankel, Tarrant Miller, John J. Bartko and Christopher J. Hunt for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION McGUINESS, P.J. National banks are

  6. Garcia v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co.

    CASE NO. 11-CV-466-BEN (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Interpreting California law

  7. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,872 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37