Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,043 chars

15
In their reply brief, appellants belatedly assert that the grant of summary judgment
was not appropriate because they may be entitled to prospective injunctive relief under
Code of Civil Procedure section 1161b. They have not shown they were seeking such
relief based on that section, the section affords them any prospective rights since their
lease term expired years ago, or the law applies retroactively. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 3
["No part of [the Code of Civil Procedure] is retroactive, unless expressly so declared"];
Elsner v. Uveges, supra, 34 Cal.4th 915, 936 ["New statutes are presumed to operate only
prospectively absent some clear indication that the Legislature intended otherwise.
[Citations.]"].)
60
issue is whether the public should have a right to that information as well." They urge us
to vacate the protective order for all the foregoing reasons.
Respondents counter that the trial court properly granted their motion for a
protective order because there was "no good faith basis for appellants to disseminate
respondent AHMSI's proprietary data outside the confines of this lawsuit."
B. Procedural History
On April 13, 2011, appellants served respondents by mail with their notice of
deposition of AHMSI's person most qualified to testify (PMQ) and requested the
production of the documents, including AHMSI's policies, procedures, and practices
concerning marketing and selling, servicing, or contracting with third parties to manage
lender-owned California real estate, effective between January 1, 2009 to present, at the
deposition. AHMSI objected to the request for production of those policies, procedures,
and practices on multiple grounds, including on the basis that appellants' request "seeks
confidential proprietary information protected from disclosure by California's right to
privacy . . . ."16 In a letter dated June 6, 2011, AHMSI's counsel again indicated that the
company's policies and practices were proprietary information.

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text