§Why CasetextPricing

Spears, Britney Jean - Conservatorship

Motion to Seal

23 Cited authorities

  1. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court

    478 U.S. 1 (1986)   Cited 1,242 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a criminal proceeding may be closed to protect the accused's right to a fair trial only if doing so is "narrowly tailored to serve that interest," meaning that "there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent" and that "reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights" (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) )

  2. Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

    7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 660 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that students' consent to drug tests as a condition of participating in athletics barred their privacy claims

  3. Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United

    112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 502 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contractual limitations periods "if reasonable are enforceable in suits under ERISA, regardless of state law"

  4. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court

    20 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 188 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a provision of state law governing the closure of court proceedings must be “interpreted in a manner compatible” with the First Amendment right of access

  5. People v. Jackson

    128 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 93 times
    Observing that California law "provides that the documents and records in an executed search warrant `shall be open to the public as a judicial record'" (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 1534(a))

  6. Pettus v. Cole

    49 Cal.App.4th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 97 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a doctor's disclosure of detailed medical and psychiatric information to that plaintiff's private employer following an examination associated with a disability leave policy was not adequately justified because the "detailed psychiatric information [the employer] requested and obtained from [the doctors], and ultimately used to make adverse personnel decisions about Pettus, was far more than the employer needed to accomplish its legitimate objectives," in the context of a private employer's personnel actions involving "no dispute resolution mechanism, no hearings"

  7. Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Co.

    80 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a physician-patient privilege did not exist where a sperm donor visited sperm bank in order only to sell his sperm and not for diagnosis or treatment of any physical or mental ailment

  8. 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court

    113 Cal.App.4th 1377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 64 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurance company cannot shield claims adjusting activities from discovery by hiring attorneys to perform them

  9. In re Marriage of Burkle

    135 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 45 times
    Holding presumptive right of access applies to divorce proceedings based upon “historical tradition/utility considerations”

  10. People v. Lines

    13 Cal.3d 500 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 102 times
    Discussing the exception in the context of a criminal defendant pleading not guilty by reason of insanity

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,087 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  12. Section 3426.1 - Definitions

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1   Cited 884 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Defining trade secrets under CUTSA similarly

  13. Section 1320d-6 - Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information

    42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6   Cited 319 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting use and disclosure of "individually identifiable health information" without authorization

  14. Section 56 - Title of act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 56   Cited 238 times   24 Legal Analyses

    This part may be cited as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Ca. Civ. Code § 56 Repealed and added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 782, Sec. 2.

  15. Section 7460 - Short title

    Cal. Gov. Code § 7460   Cited 17 times

    This chapter shall be known as the "California Right to Financial Privacy Act." Ca. Gov. Code § 7460 Added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1320.

  16. Section 26 - Recycled water or reclaimed water

    Cal. Gov. Code § 26   Cited 3 times

    For the purposes of this code, "recycled water" or "reclaimed water" has the same meaning as recycled water as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 13050 of the Water Code. Ca. Gov. Code § 26 Added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 28, Sec. 1.7. Effective January 1, 1996.

  17. Rule 2.550 - Sealed records

    Cal. R. 2.550   Cited 247 times

    (a) Application (1) Rules 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (2) These rules do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential by law. (3) These rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings. (b) Definitions

  18. Rule 2.551 - Procedures for filing records under seal

    Cal. R. 2.551   Cited 96 times

    (a) Court approval required A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. (b) Motion or application to seal a record (1)Motion or application required A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts