Case law

Toho Co., Ltd. v. William Morrow and Co., Inc.

33 F. Supp. 2d 1206 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 6, 1998

This factor weighs for Toho. c.Similarity of the Marks This factor clearly weighs for Toho as the marks are identical. … Only those characters that are highly delineated with constant traits qualify for protection separate from the works in which they appear. Nichols v.

Claudia Chavez v. LAC and USC Medical Center

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 18, 2020

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 12 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 13 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 23 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 24 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 25 in the margins).

In re Conagra Foods, Inc.

90 F. Supp. 3d 919 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 23, 2015

The declarations can only be stricken if they clearly and unambiguously contradict syrorn statements made earlier in this litigation. … be established by common survey proof.

Jeff Vaughn v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2025

If only a 2 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 3 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 4 appropriate markings in the margins … This provision is not intended 12 to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that 13 provides for production without prior privilege review.

Derrick Munzel Wright Jr v. Omar Covarrubias

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 19, 2021

CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 24 declaration, establishing … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 15 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 16

Kupetz v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago

77 B.R. 754 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 12, 1987

Clearly it was. … The evidence at trial did not clearly establish whether the payment to Marmon was made under the letter of credit or was a direct payment by Wolf & Vine.

Dominique Daniels v. G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 4, 2021

Except as otherwise 2 provided in this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of 3 Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be 4 clearly so designated before … If only a portion of the material on 24 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify 25 the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 26

Tametria Nash-Perry v. JTH Tax Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 8, 2019

Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that Section 1447(e) “clearly gives the district court the discretion to deny joinder.”). … Even if Vaughn is immune from liability for retaliation, her alleged conduct is nonetheless “proscribed” by a “determinable legal standard.”

Alex Duarte v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 16, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 14 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 15 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 27 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 28 without prior privilege review.

O.L. v. City of El Monte

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 30, 2020

Except as otherwise 26 provided in this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of 27 Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be 28 clearly so designated before … If only a portion of the material on 19 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify 20

Joseph Bayardo, Jr. v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 28, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 2 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 3 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 13 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 14 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Robert R Jimenez v. Monica Chesser

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 6, 2025

Jiminez contends that 23 Removing Defendants were required to, but did not, carry their “burden to clearly 24 identify ‘claims which are cognizable under’” this section. (Id. … Section 2680(h), which lists libel 7 and slander as exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)’s waiver of 8 sovereign immunity, does not override the Attorney General’s authority to effect

Marcus Alexander Murchinson v. City of Sierra Madre

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 30, 2024

If only a 18 || portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 19 || clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 20 || margins). 21 … If only a portion of the material on a page 2 || qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 3 || portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 4

Freddy Ackerman v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 21, 2024

If only a 14 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 15 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 16 markings in the margins … If only a 26 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 27 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 1 (b) for testimony

Ades v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.

46 F. Supp. 3d 999 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 8, 2014

The party challenging the statute “bears the burden of proof in establishing the excessive burden in relation to the local benefits.” Nat’l Ass’n of Optometrists I, 567 F.3d at 528 . 1. … Omni also claims that the legislative history and potential “absurd and unfair re-suits” justifies “qualifying] the plain meaning” of 632.7. Id. at 24 (citing Ctr. for Nat’l Policy Review on Race & Urban Issues v.

Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 9, 2024

If only a 27 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 1 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 2 markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material 12 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 13 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Townsend v. Monster Beverage Corp.

303 F. Supp. 3d 1010 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 20, 2018

Boedeker is not qualified to make. See Newcal Industries, Inc. v. … First, Plaintiffs do not establish that the Hydrates statement has a common meaning.

Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 11, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 5 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 6 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 16 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 17 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 18

Estate of Ruben Guzman v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 29, 2025

Except as otherwise provided in 21 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, material that qualifies for protection 22 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 23 produced … If only a portion or portions of 15 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 16 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 17

Eleonora Lizzeth Ulloa Calderon v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · May 2, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 7 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 8 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 20 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 21 without prior privilege review.