California Rules Court 2.550 - Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits

Useful Rulings on Application for Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits

Recent Rulings on Application for Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits

WALTERS V. MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) 15 A party moving to seal a record must file a memorandum and a declaration containing 16 facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) A declaration 17 supporting a motion to seal should be specific, not conclusory, as to the facts supporting the 18 overriding interest.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

ML DOE V. DOE 1, A CORPORATION

Plaintiff is to comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 in filing his unredacted version. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

AKRAM ELESTIT VS THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS, INC., DBA THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); See also Savaglio v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JONES VS HAZELDEN BETTY FORD FOUNDATION

Defendants bring this motion under California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. The general rule is that unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. The motion fails because rule 2.550(a)(2) specifically provides that “[t]hese rules do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL VIII, LLC VS WILLIAM F. LASKY

Under Rule 2.550(c) “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” The rules for sealing records “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” 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.” CRC Rule 2.550(a)(3); NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

WILSON CASTANEDA, ET AL. VS LYFT INC.,, ET AL.

Thus, the sealing order is proper under Rule 2.550(d). Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ALPHABET SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE CASES

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(4), (5).) In such a case, the moving party should take a line-by-line approach to the information in the document, rather than framing the issue to the court on an all-or-nothing basis. (In re Providian, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.) II.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

ROCIO DEVORA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Motion to Seal Confidential and/or Proprietary Information The sealing of court records is governed by California Rules of Court rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68.) The presumption of open access to court records does not apply to “records that are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUBERSKI, INC VS. EGGS UNLIMITED, LLC

Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d). Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

NIKE USA INC VS 5860 WEST JEFFERSON LLC ET AL

(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).) A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.) Nike moves to seal exhibits J and K of the James R. Evans declaration submitted in opposition to Nike’s motion for summary adjudication. (Motion at p. i.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JUSTIN MORGENTHALER ET AL VS JUAN ANTONIO HAROMARTINEZ ET AL

(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).) (4) What Constitutes an “Overriding Interest?”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ML DOE V. DOE 1, A CORP.

The parties are to comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 in filing these unredacted versions. The court notes that California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b), states in part, “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record.” Plaintiff is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MERLE TAYLOR, ET AL. V. ROBERT HOUSTON, ET AL.

On August 4, plaintiffs withdrew their opposition to the motion but indicated they were not endorsing the motion or conceding that defendants have met their burden under CRC 2.550, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ISLA V. KD PEBBLE LLC

Should sealing be desired, the parties will need to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. and the authorities cited above. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COLOURPOP COSMETICS LLC VS. JORDYNN CHEENEY

(See, CRC Rule 2.550(d).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

AAMH PHARMACEUTICAL INC VS. OPTUMRX INC

The stipulation of the parties is insufficient in itself to justify sealing in the absence of Optum meeting its burden under rule 2.550, subdivision (d). (See Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (Machine Zone, Inc.) (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 638, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 395; H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 891-92, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 501.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS KKW BEAUTY, LLC, FORMERLY KKW BEAUTY, INC.

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (c) states: “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” Nevertheless, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rule of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1) states: “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS COTY, INC., ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (c) states: “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” Nevertheless, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rule of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1) states: “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAUREN MYERS ET AL VS AT&T AUTHORIZED RETAILER #297

Thus, the Court grants the motion to seal pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 2.550(d). The Court notes, however, that the Court’s records do not reflect that Plaintiffs complied with Rule 2.551(b)(4) in making this motion. That rule requires a party requesting that a record be filed under seal to lodge it with the Court in accordance with Rule 2.551(d). It does not appear to the Court that the unredacted records have been lodged.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

ENTRY VENTURES INC V. THE TEAM GROUP LLC

Court records are "presumed to be open" to the public (Rule 2.550(c)), and the party seeking to withhold information from court records from the public should have the burden of making the showing required by Rule 2.550(d) and obtaining the order required by Rule 2.550(e). Fifth, The Team Group seeks "an order of monetary sanctions" of various amounts for work in connection with the current motion and prior discovery motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VANESSA F. MARTINEZ VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

CRC 2.550(d)(1) and (2). NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273. The court also finds that there is a substantial probability that protection of the confidential information will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and that no less restrictive means exist to achieve protection of the confidential information. CRC 2.550(d)(3), (4) and (5).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MUHAMET CIFLIGU ET AL VS. AMBITIONS CALIFORNIA, INC ET AL

CRC, Rule 2.550(d). Plaintiffs move for an order to seal numerous documents filed in conjunction with the numerous motions which are on calendar this date. However, primarily, Plaintiffs seek an order to seal the contents of the underlying settlement agreement an all documents which reference the financial terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs identify the overriding interest as the contractual agreement between the parties not to disclose the financial terms of the settlement. (Declaration, Tyler R.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(CRC 2.550.) A motion seeking an order sealing the record must be accompanied by “a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1), bold emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

LEIBA VS. GANN

(CRC, Rule 2.550(d).) The Board Meeting minutes contain non-confidential and non-financial information that should not be sealed. In addition, Exhibit E, consisting of the 6-13-19 Board meeting minutes, does not appear to contain any confidential, financial information of Westview or Gann. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion as to Exhibit E. Westview to file Exhibit E without redactions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

LUBERSKI, INC VS. EGGS UNLIMITED LLC

Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d). Further, although Plaintiff filed an opposition, it does not actually dispute that the subject documents are confidential. Prevailing party to give notice. Here, moving parties seek to seal portions of a document they apparently inadvertently filed and made available to the public. To effect the order granting the motion, the Court orders moving parties to file a public version of the Declaration of Andrew R.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 65     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.