Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Proposition 244, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, clearly mandated that the new privacy agency had to promulgate regulations in 15 areas by July 1, 2022.  It also provided that the agency could begin enforcing the Act on July 1, 2023.  The agency didn't promulgate final regulations until 9 months after the deadline.  This decision holds that the trial… Read More

Wife getting a divorce revealed private sensitive formation about husband to her investigator who relayed the information to an agent.  This decision holds that the disclosure of the sensitive information was closely enough related to the divorce proceedings to be protected conduct under CCP 425.16(e).  The sensitive information related to possible financial misdealing that wife wanted the investigator to look… Read More

Under a manuscript endorsement, Yahoo's insurance policy provided covereage for “injury . . . arising out of . . . [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”  This decision holds that the "restrictive relative phrase" "that violates a person's right of privacy" might under standard rules of English usage and the… Read More

The trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant in this invasion of privacy suit which alleged that the defendant neighbor invaded plaintiff's privacy by audio and video recordings made by defendant's security cameras and recorders of goings on in plaintiff's backyard.  The opinion states that defendant had a legitimate need for the security equipment as she was a media… Read More

Though the filming and exhibition of a public television reality show regarding persons aspiring to be models was entitled to protection under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)), the plaintiff, a real, well-known model, presented enough evidence to show a probability of success on her claims for invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and misappropriation of her… Read More

Internet service providers must produce, in response to a subpoena, any material that a social media user has configured to be public, but not material configured for view by specific individuals, even though those persons might further disclose the materials. Read More

Criminal defendant’s constitutional due process rights are not violated by federal statute prohibiting him from subpoenaing third party internet service provider (here, Facebook) for disclosure of non-public postings by one of its subscribers (such as, here, the defendant’s victim). Read More

Any Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim necessarily involves an invasion of privacy, so such a claim fell within the invasion of privacy exclusion to the insured's directors & officers insurance policy.   Read More

State medical board, who was investigating a doctor for over-prescription of addictive drugs, did not violate privacy rights of doctor’s patients by obtaining database information on drugs which pharmacies had dispensed to them.   Read More

The psychotherapist-patient privilege may not be raised in opposition to producing patient records in a Medical Board investigation, but to protect the patient’s privacy rights the subpoena must be carefully tailored to request only records that are relevant and material to a compelling state interest, such as avoiding over-prescription of controlled substances. Read More

A company with a website for anonymous online postings about employment experiences has standing to assert the privacy and First Amendment rights of its posters, and to force disclosure of their identities, the plaintiff must first prove a prima facie claim against the poster.  Read More

After trial court clerk improperly posted copy of confidential pleading that revealed plaintiff’s true name in his revenge porn lawsuit (in which plaintiffs are ordinarily permitted to proceed anonymously), the trial court compounded the error by ruling that all future filings would have to be in plaintiff’s real name.  Read More

For purposes of the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act, both Facebook and its individual users had to consent before defendant could have its users initiate Facebook messages inviting others to use defendant’s website; the consent of the individual users alone was insufficient.  Read More