Riddell, Inc. v. Superior Court
Annotate this CaseRiddell filed suit against Insurers, alleging that they owed Riddell a defense and indemnity in third party actions by former professional football players claiming that they suffered personal injuries resulting from Riddell's helmets. Insurers subsequently moved to compel further discovery seeking information related to prior claims against Riddell. The trial court granted the motions to compel and denied the motion for a protective order. The Court of Appeal granted Riddell's petition for a writ of mandate, holding that the discovery at issue was logically related to factual issues in the third party actions and that a stay of that discovery was thus appropriate. However, Riddell must provide privilege logs of documents withheld in document productions that have already occurred. Accordingly, the court directed the trial court to vacate its order on Insurers' motions to compel and enter a new order granting the motions as to the privilege logs only. The court directed the trial court to grant Riddell's request for a stay of the discovery at issue.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.