Lantz v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARDAIZ, P. J.
Section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a procedural mechanism designed to give notice to a “consumer” when the consumer’s “personal records” are being subpoenaed by a “subpoenaing party.” In this case, we conclude that when a county is a defendant in a civil action alleging sexual harassment and seeks to subpoena personal records (here, medical records) of the plaintifftconsumer, the county is a “subpoenaing party” as that term is defined in subdivision (a)(3) of the statute and must therefore give notice to the consumer in the manner prescribed by the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Younger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Palos Verdes Faculty Ass'n v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Artis v. Deere & Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2011
- Wolpin v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1999
- Planned Parenthood v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Center v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.