Case law

Sanchez Gallegos v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 14, 2023

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 17 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 18 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 2 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 3 without prior privilege review.

Beyond Blond Productions, LLC v. Edward Heldman III

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 2020

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 11 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 12 appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 8 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 9 without prior privilege review.

Heritage Lace, Inc. v. Underwraps Costume Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 29, 2020

If g || only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 9 || Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 10 making appropriate markings … This provision is not intended to modify 18 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides 19 | for production without prior privilege review.

Glen Charles Klement v. G. Lizaola

District Court, C.D. California · May 11, 2022

If only a 10 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 11 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 12 in the margins). … If only a 22 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 23 must clearly identify the protected portion(s), e.g., by making appropriate markings 24 in the margins.

Princess Robinson v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 27, 2023

If only a portion 16 || or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also —17]||must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 18 … If only a portion or portions of 3 || the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 4|lidentify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in

Phoenix Books, Inc. v. Mr Bongo Worldwide Ltd

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 27, 2019

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 22 Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent 23 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 24 … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 14 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 15 making appropriate markings in the margins).

Kelly Duro v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 7, 2021

If only a portion or portions of 10 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 11 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 12 margins … If only a 23 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 24 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 25 appropriate markings in the

Nantworks, LLC v. Bank Of America Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · May 14, 2021

Designations that 19 are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose 20 (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose 21 unnecessary expenses … Except as otherwise provided in this 28 Order (see, e.g., second paragraph below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, 1 Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly

Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A.

922 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 6, 2013

Counsel has an obligation to lay out their support clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 , 1031 (9th Cir.2001). … Having concluded that Turner’s opinion is inadmissible for failure to apply reliable methods and rely upon sufficient information, the court does not address Skecher's contention that Turner is not qualified to present expert

1932 Hillhurst, LLC v. Kui Sun Kim

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 2022

The parties’ mere 20 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 21 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 22 material sought … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 17 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 18 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Eric Brandon Fields v. California Institution for Men Medical Cheif and Staff

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2021

Finally, Congress has not 24 repealed State sovereign immunity against suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 25 Accordingly, a state agency, such as the CDCR, is immune from civil rights 26 claims raised pursuant to § … Even “gross negligence” is insufficient to establish 18 deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th 19 Cir. 1990).

Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2023

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 13 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 14 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If 24 only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 25 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 26 appropriate markings in the margins).

Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Gordon R.A. Fishman Irrevocable Life Trust

638 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 10, 2009

Fishman formed and which held the Policies when they were issued by Lincoln, clearly has an insurable interest in his life. … It is well established that an irrevocable trust, such as the one in this case, may purchase and hold life insurance policies on the life of its settlor. Moreover, Dr.

Estate of Scott Hultman v. County of Ventura

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 10, 2021

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 7 | protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 8 | (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If 18 | only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 19 | Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 20 | appropriate markings in the margins

Maurice Harper v. State of California

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 2025

Complaint and 7 || is required to dismiss the case at any time it concludes the action is frivolous or 8 || malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 9 || monetary relief from a defendant immune … A Section 1983 8 | plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (7.e., legal) causation. 9 || See Harper v.

Smartco International Asia Limited v. Charles Brian Gross

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

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 27 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 1 A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents available for … If only a 10 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 11 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 12 in the margins).

Aliign Activation Wear, LLC v. lululemon athletica inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 22, 2021

If only a portion or portions of the material on 16 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 17 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 18 … This provision is not intended to modify 18 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 19 production without prior privilege review. 20 12.

Uche-Uwakwe v. Shinseki

972 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 18, 2013

In light of the severity of such a sanction, even if temporary, the Supreme Court found it qualified as an adverse employment action. Id. … The Ninth Circuit found the plaintiff “clearly met” the second element of his prima facie retaliation claim on this factual basis. Id. at 1375-76.

Gerard F. Cellette v. Dale Pomerantz

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2022

Furthermore, for the “prospective injunctive relief” exception to the 12 Eleventh Amendment to apply, the plaintiff must establish a continuing violation of 13 federal law. Green v. … If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended 4 Complaint, he must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the 5 “Second Amended Complaint,” it must bear the docket number assigned to this case, 6

Ferrari v. Gisch

225 F.R.D. 599 · District Court, C.D. California · May 21, 2004

In the present case, however, the evidence before the court is not inconclusive; it clearly favors the Poppe Group over the Massachusetts Group. … The certifications and declarations submitted establish that the Poppe Group has met the requirements, at this preliminary stage, of typicality and adequacy under Rule 23.