On 12/21/2017 JOSEPH SAMEC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GUY GRIFFITHE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
PETER A. HERNANDEZ
DUKES, ROBERT A.
BRIDGEGATE ENTERTAINMENT INC
BRIDGEGATE ENTERTAINMENT INC.
BRIDGEGATE PICTURES CORP.
HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES LUBKA DARLING
DARLING JOHN DUANE
ANNIGIAN JASON D
RICHARDS THOMAS K.
12/22/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference
4/13/2018: Minute Order
4/30/2018: Case Management Statement
6/11/2018: Legacy Document
7/23/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
5/7/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
5/7/2019: Substitution of Attorney
5/17/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/17/2019: Separate Statement
5/17/2019: Separate Statement
5/17/2019: Motion to Compel
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Status Conference Re: BankruptcyRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:07 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial;) of 07/29/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Protective Order;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (Ruling on the Court's Tentative); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (in Connection with Motion for Protective Order); Filed by BRIDGEGATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (Defendant); Bridgegate Management (Defendant); GUY GRIFFITHE (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF JOSEPH SAMEC RE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST BRIDGEGATE DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,805); Filed by JOSEPH SAMEC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST BRIDGEGATE DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,805; DECLARATION OF DUSTIN LOZANO); Filed by JOSEPH SAMEC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & ComplRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by JOSEPH SAMEC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: KC069896 Hearing Date: January 11, 2021 Dept: O
Plaintiff Joseph Samec’s motion to adopt his proposed protective order is conditionally GRANTED with an “attorney eyes only” provision that would restrict Plaintiff access to the bank records of Defendant Guy Griffithe. Defendants are to file with the Court their proposed “attorney eyes only” provision within 10 days or waive their objections.
Plaintiff Joseph Samec (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court to adopt his version of a proposed protective order dated June 4, 2019 after Defendants Bridgegate Entertainment, Inc., Bridgegate Management, Bridgegate Pictures Corp., and Guy Griffithe (collectively “Defendants”) failed to comply with the court’s prior ruling on the matter.
The Court previously ruled on July 28, 2019 that a protective order be entered that includes an “attorney eyes only” provision that will restrict Plaintiff’s access to the bank records of Defendant Guy Griffithe. In its ruling, the Court reasoned that “[t]here is absolutely no good reason for Plaintiff to personally view Defendant’s bank account. Given Plaintiff’s past conduct, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for an attorney eye’s only protective order to protect Defendant ‘from unwarranted annoyance [and] embarrassment.’“
In the ruling, the Court also stated that Defendant was to submit a proposed protective order within 5 days of the hearing. However, it seems Defendant did not submit any proposed protective order in accordance with this Court’s ruling.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED with attorney eyes only provision added to Plaintiff’s proposed protective order. Because it is in Defendants’ interest to protect this information from Plaintiff’s eyes, the Court will order Defendants to file with the court their proposed “attorney eyes only” provision within 10 days. Should Defendants fail to do so, the court will deem that Defendants waived their concerns, and will adopt Plaintiff’s proposed protective order dated as-is.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases