Legal Opinion

Lantz v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 13, 1994No. F020911PublishedCited by 19 opinions

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

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Younger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Palos Verdes Faculty Ass'n v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. 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

  1. Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Artis v. Deere & Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2011
  3. Wolpin v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1999
  4. Planned Parenthood v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. Center v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API