Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gobat Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena, Part 1 of 2

Gobat Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena, Part 1 of 2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,645|Likes:
Published by Ken White
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in opposition to a petition to quash a subpoena.
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in opposition to a petition to quash a subpoena.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Ken White on Oct 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
J
4
5
6
78910
11
t2
t3
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
242526
27
28
owens
tarabichi
llp
t4
15
t6
DAVID
R.
OWENS,
State
BarNo.
180829
dowens
@owenstarabichi.
com
BRUNO W.
TARABICHI,
State
Bar
No.
2
1
5
129
btarabichi@owenstarabichi.com
OWENS
TARABICHI LLP
111
N.
Market
St., Suite
730
San
Jose,
California
95113
Telephone:
408-298-8200
Facsimile:
408-521-2203
Attorneysfor
Respondent
Oliver
Gobat
St.
Lucia
Free
Press,
Petitioner,
Oliver
Gobat,
Respondent.
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
COLINTYOF SAN FRANCISCO
Case
No.
CPF-I3-513220
RESPONDENT
OLIVER
GOBAT'S
oPPOSTTTON
TO
MOTTON
TO
QUASHSUBPOENA
AIID
REQUEST
FOR
SANCTIONS
Date:
October16,2013
Time:
9:00 am
Dept.:
302
Judge:
Hon. Marla
J.
Miller
DISCOVERY
Opp.
to
Mot.
to
Quash
 
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
910
11
t2
13
l4
15
t6
171819
20
2l
22
Z3
2425262728
owens
tarabichi
1lp
Counselors
At
Law
I.
II.
ru.
C.
The
U.K.order
was
validityissued-Petitioner's
arguments
are
based
on
afabricationof
U.K.
rules
andinadmissible
heresay
'...............3The
U.K.court
determined
that
is
has
jurisdiction
overRespondent
Gobat's
defomation
claim-Petitioner's
argument
to
the
contrary
is
againwithout
evidence
or
merit.....
..........5Respondent
Gobat
has
aclear
prima
facie
case
for
defamation
andPetitioner's
failure
to
specifically
addressthe
defamatory
statements
speala
volumes....
.................'.....6
l.
Defendant
has
a
primafacie
defamation
claim
under
applicable
U.K.
law....
.....'...........7
a.
The
article
at
issue
containsdefamatory
statements
thatreduce
Respondent'sesteemandreputationinsociety.'.....
.."....'.'.'.8
b.
The
articlecontainedwrittenwords
aboutRespondentand
was
publishedto
those
otherthan
Respondent
..............................10
2.
Evenassuming,arguendo,
that
U.K
law
isinapplicable,
Respondenthas
a
primafacie
defamation
claimunder
U.S.
\a.........'.'..."
10
Petitioner's
meritlessorgumentsore
so
lackingin
credibility
and
goodfaith
thatsanctionsagainst
Petitionerand
its
counselare
appropriate
..........
..."""""'
13
IV.A.
B.
D.
Opp.
to
Mot.
to
Quash
 
1
2
a
J
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
15
t6t7
1819
20
2l
2223242526
27
28
'*.";:":?"Tt^':*"0
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
PageCases
Baker
v. Los
Angeles
Herald
Exam'r,
42 Ca1.3d254,260
(1986)
......12
ChaplinslE
v.
New
Hampshire,
315
U.S.
568,571
(1942).......
....................10
Ferlauto
v.
Hamsher,
74
Cal.
App.
4th
1394,1401
(1999)
..........11
Forsher
v.
Bugliosi,
26
Ca1.3d792,806
(1930)
'.....13Gertz
v.
Welch,
418
U.S. 323,347
(1974).......
....................11Jeffers
v. Screen
ExtrasGuild,Inc.,
134
Cal.App.Zd
622,623
(1955)
...............1
Krinslcy
v.
Doe
6,
159
CaL
App.
4th
ll54,ll72
(2008)
................7,12,13LetterCarriers
v.
Austin,
418
U.S.
264
(1974)
.................11
Mclellan
v.
Mclellan,
23
Cal.
App.
3d
343,359
(1972)
.................4
Nygard,Inc.
v.
Uusi-Kerttula,
159
Cal.
App.
4th
1027
,
1047
(2008)
........1
I
Seelig
v.
Infinity
Broadcasting
Corp.,
97
CaL
App.
4th798,
809
(2002)
..............11United
Statesv.
Stevens,
59
U.S.
460,460
(2010).......
......................11
Statutes
Cal.
Civ.
Code
$$
44-45
......................11Cal.
Civ.
Proc. Code
S
2029.200(e).............
............3
Cal.
Civ.
Proc. Code
S
2029.350
.......1,
3
Cal.
Evid.
Code
$
1200..........
........-.......428
U.S.C.
$
4102
et
seq.
......................10
Opp.
to
Mot.
to
Quash

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->