Case law

B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 14, 2022

If only a portion of the material on a page 3 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 4 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 5 … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 16 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 17 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

James Dean Mitton v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 10, 2020

The 13 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 14 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 15 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed … Designations 2 that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper 3 purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to 4 impose unnecessary expenses and burdens

Nicholas Green v. Board of Regents of the University of California

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 25, 2022

If only a Z 14 || portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also a | 15||must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 16 □□ □□ … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 12 || may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without FI 13 || prior privilege review.

Preservation of Los Olivos v. United States Department of the Interior

635 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 8, 2008

Trust status for the land would make Indian property on the land immune to taxation by state or local governments unless expressly authorized by Congress. See Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. … The IBIA Order, despite its extensive analysis, clearly does not accomplish this. See Fla.

Bailey Bennion v. Hyundai Motor Co.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 17, 2025

this Stipulated 4 Protective Order must be clearly so designated before the material 5 is disclosed or produced. … This provision is not intended to modify 7 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 8 production without prior privilege review.

Ada Shenon v. New York Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 16, 2020

of the evidence that Parker is a qualified expert.” … Parker is qualified to testify as an expert on the ordinary insurance claims process.

Jordan James v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2025

Accordingly, while Plaintiff does not specify whether this publicization was in the form of a written or verbal statement, it clearly satisfies the standards for both libel and slander per se. … “The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant

In re Wellpoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation

903 F. Supp. 2d 880 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 6, 2012

Moreover, as the Subscribers are also plaintiffs in this action, they clearly are motivated to punish the defendants for their wrongdoing. … Schwendig’s patients — who are also WellPoint’s members — being enrolled in a qualifying benefits plan. On these facts, Dr. Schwendig’s claim “cannot be regarded as independent of ERISA.”

Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 24, 2022

If only a portion 7 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 8 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 9 in the margins … If only a portion or portions of 21 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 23

Keith v. Volpe

644 F. Supp. 1317 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 26, 1986

See Samuel, 573 F.2d at 582 n. 2 (“We do not reach the question of whether the plaintiff has to be indigent in order to qualify for § 3612(c).”). … Clearly, the word “conference” can mean very different things to different people.

CS Anaheim Hotel Investments LLC v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2025

However, Choice limits the 11 number of qualified vendors in exchange for kickbacks from those vendors. (Id. 12 ¶ 83.) … “The party resisting enforcement of an arbitration agreement has the burden 2 to establish unconscionability.”

Line One Laboratories Inc. USA v. Wingpow International Limited

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 1, 2022

Designations 6 that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose 7 (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose 8 unnecessary expenses and burdens … Except as otherwise provided in this Order, 15 Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be 16 clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 17

Vitality Rehab, Inc. v. Sebelius

641 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 3, 2009

The excerpt from Program Memorandum A98-18 states: Upon further examination of the legislative history, we concluded that Congress had not intended to address this issue [bad debt treatment for Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries … The Secretary’s Opening Brief clearly also serves as an opposition to Vitality’s Opening Brief as it addresses arguments raised in Vitality’s Opening Brief. 2 .

Paul Frank Industries, Inc. v. Sunich

502 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 21, 2007

As with other marks, a court can restrict use of a full name if it is likely to cause consumer confusion with an established, famous mark. … This has often involved an order allowing for qualified use of a name in conjunction with a disclaimer. See, e.g., Friend v. H.A.

Abigail Aguilera-Cubitt v. AG Seal Beach, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2022

This “‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (quoting Nishimoto v. … It defines “covered person” to include persons or entities (and their officials, agents, and employees) that are manufacturers, distributors, program planners, or qualified persons who prescribed, administered, or dispensed

Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 3, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 18 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 19 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … the “CONFIDENTIAL legend” to each page that contains Protected Material. 2 If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 3 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected

Hassanati v. International Lease Finance Corp.

51 F. Supp. 3d 887 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 18, 2014

The removal and appointment of a personal representative clearly would interfere with the administration of the estate”); Coleman v. … ODC argues before this Court that unpublished decisions can be considered in determining whether the law was clearly established. We agree”). . Order at 18-20 (emphasis added). .

Leeyonnie Hernandez v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 22, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 10 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 11 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) … If only a portion or portions of the 21 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the

Shanan Guinn v. The Walt Disney Company

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 17, 2023

this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 10 produced. 11 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 22 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 23 without prior privilege review.

Benjamin Woodhouse v. The United States Government

District Court, C.D. California · May 2, 2022

Moreover, on March 2, 2022, on the basis of judicial immunity or qualified immunity, respectively, the Court dismissed the case as to individual defendants the Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld Jr., the Hon. R. … Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing that diversity jurisdiction exists. Alphabet is a citizen of California, and although plaintiff contends that Woodhouse and Havensight Capital are citizens of the U.S.