Civil Litigation
Jan. 25, 2019
State cites privileged documents in coffee labeling case
The state attorney general’s office sought Thursday to withhold thousands of documents the plaintiff in the Starbucks cancer case believes would show the governor’s office illegally intervened for the coffee industry on a state judge’s adverse ruling.
LOS ANGELES -- The state attorney general's office sought Thursday to withhold thousands of documents the plaintiff in the Starbucks cancer case believes would show the governor's office illegally intervened for the coffee industry on a state judge's adverse ruling.
Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle ruled last year that coffee defense attorneys did not prove a safe, al...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Civil Litigation, Government
Validity of coffee warning label exemption back to original judge
By Justin Kloczko
Civil Litigation
State’s rule saying coffee chemical isn’t cancerous affects pending suit
By Justin Kloczko
Civil Litigation, California Courts of Appeal
Appellate court stays Starbucks coffee labeling case on eve of civil penalties phase
By Justin Kloczko
Civil Litigation, Government
Plaintiff in case saying coffee causes cancer alleges illegal government intervention
By Justin Kloczko
