EEOC v. McLane Co., 2015 WL 6457965 (9th Cir. 2015)

Damiana Ochoa filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination (based on pregnancy) in violation of Title VII, when, after s­­he tried to return to her job following maternity leave, her employer (McLane Co.) informed her that she could not come back to the position she had held for eight years as a

Negro v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 5341926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Navalimpianti USA, Inc. subpoenaed Google, Inc. to produce copies of email messages it had relating to one of Navalimpianti’s former employees, Matteo Negro. Prior to initiating this action against Google in state court in California, Navalimpianti sued Negro and other former employees in state court in Florida for various breaches of duty pursuant

Pirjada v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1074 (2011)

Putative class representative Obaidul H. Pirjada filed a complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class of all security guards who had been employed in California by Pacific National Security, Inc. during the preceding four years. The complaint alleged a failure to provide meal-and-rest periods and various other wage-and-hour violations as well as

In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 657 F.3d 1008 (2011)

Documents that were produced in discovery and filed in the bankruptcy court contained allegations that Fathers “M” and “D” (two priests who were not parties to the Portland Archdiocese’s bankruptcy case) had sexually abused children. The bankruptcy court held that the discovery documents could be disclosed to the public because the public’s interest

NewLife Sciences, Inc. v. Weinstock, 197 Cal. App. 4th 676 (2011)

NewLife terminated the employment of Ronald Weinstock, the purported inventor of a Therapeutic Magnetic Resonance Device (“TMRD”), which NewLife had purchased approximately one year before the termination. In connection with its purchase of the TMRD, NewLife had obtained a non-compete covenant, which prohibited Weinstock from competing for five years after the termination of

Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)

Twenty-three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants had been employed at NIBCO’s factory in Fresno and were terminated following their poor performance on a basic job skills examination that was given in English. The employees alleged discrimination under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. During a deposition, Martha Rivera’s counsel

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004)

Computer Task Group (CTG) sued William Brotby for breach of a non-solicitation/non-disclosure agreement that he signed while he was working as an information technologies consultant. CTG succeeded in obtaining an injunction prohibiting Brotby from working for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, one of CTG’s clients. During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, Brotby

Oxy Resources Cal. LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 874 (2004)

Oxy Resources and EOG Resources entered into a complex transaction whereby they exchanged interests in a number of oil and gas producing properties. Oxy and EOG anticipated that Calpine Natural Gas LP might sue them as a result of the transaction and, therefore, they entered into a joint-defense agreement before finalizing

McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1229 (2004)

After McKesson publicly disclosed that its auditors had discovered improperly recorded revenues at a McKesson subsidiary, it became the subject of shareholder lawsuits and investigations by the United States Attorney’s Office and the SEC. McKesson retained an outside law firm to represent it in the shareholder lawsuits and to perform an internal

2,022 Ranch, LLC v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (2003)

A purchaser of land (2,022 Ranch, LLC) sued its title insurer (Chicago Title) for breach of contract and bad faith. During the course of the litigation, 2,022 Ranch sought documents from Chicago Title’s claims file and also to depose claims handlers and their supervisors concerning Chicago Title’s handling of and refusal to