Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV24187, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV24187    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Gerardo Munoz Torres (“Torres”) filed Case no. 19STCV24187 against defendant Jinsun Michelle Moon for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Torres was allegedly acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and on August 7, 2019, Oak River Insurance Company (“Oak River”) filed Case no. 19STLC07322 against Michelle Moon and Kyung Jae Moon for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid to Torres resulting from the subject accident.  Michelle Moon then filed a cross-complaint against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in 19STLC07322. 

On February 26, 2021, 19STCV24187 and 19STLC07322 were deemed related, with 19STCV24187 being designated the lead case.  (Min. Order Feb. 26, 2021.)  Thereafter, the actions were ordered consolidated on April 19, 2022.  (Min. Order April 19, 2022.) 

At this time, State Farm moves for a protective order governing the disclosure and use of confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information and documents at deposition and throughout this litigation. 

State Farm asserts that cross-complainant Michelle Moon seeks to take the deposition of State Farm’s person most knowledgeable regarding the underwriting of Moon’s insurance policy, and the deposition notice requests production of State Farm’s underwriting files, including State Farm’s manuals regarding policies and cancellation procedures.  State Farm asserts that it is undisputed that information responsive to Plaintiff’s requests include materials that contain confidential, proprietary commercial and trade secret information in which State Farm has a protectable interest, and that disclosure of same to anyone outside of this litigation would result in irreparable injury to State Farm.  State Farm contends that a protective order must be in place before State Farm can produce the documents or information at deposition. 

State Farm asserts that all parties have stipulated to the protective order, except for Torres’s counsel, who did not respond to State Farm’s meet and confer attempts.  On December 19, 2022, Oak River filed a response to the motion providing that it stipulates to the requested protective order and requesting that the motion be granted.  On January 9, 2022, Kyung Jae Moon and Michelle Moon filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.  As of January 18, 2023, no opposition has been filed. 

2. Motion for Protective Order

CCP § 2025.420 states in part:

(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense…

Furthermore, “When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(a).)  “The Court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (CCP § 2031.060(b).)  “As can be seen by the language of the above provision, the issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.”  (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.)

Here, State Farm submits the declaration of Wendy Riggs-Ritchie (“Riggs-Ritchie”), a Property and Casualty Underwriting Analyst, for State Farm.  Riggs-Ritchie states that she has reviewed Michelle Moon’s notice of deposition and request for production of documents and has determined that information responsive to these requests are contained in various State Farm underwriting documents that are not open to the public and accessible only through a secure computer log-in.   (Mot. Riggs-Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.)  Riggs-Ritchie attests that the underwriting resources are “in-house guides developed by State Farm for use exclusively by State Farm underwriters and State Farm exclusive independent contractor agents. State Farm has incurred substantial expense and devoted many hours to the development of the Underwriting Resources. The material in the Underwriting Resources is unique to State Farm – it is the fruit of State Farm’s internal information, underwriting experience, experience communicating with policyholders, and knowledge obtained from successes and losses in the automobile underwriting market.”  (Id. at ¶ 8.)   Further, Riggs-Ritchie provides that State Farm treats the underwriting resources as confidential commercial information and trade secret, and states that if the resources were disseminated to State Farm’s competitors, State Farm would lose competitive advantage.  (Id. at ¶¶ 11-15.) 

Oak River, Kyung Jae Moon and Michelle Moon stipulate to the proposed order, and Torres does not otherwise oppose the motion.  However, the Court makes certain clarifications or modifications to State Farm’s proposed protective order.  (Mot. Exh. A.)  The Court undertakes no obligation to return or destroy any confidential or trade secret information received or filed, or to give notice if it is subpoenaed, pursuant to the Order.  Court processes will be followed with regard to sealed documents, rather than any processes specially described in the proposed order, to the extent that they conflict.  The Court will only retain jurisdiction in this matter to the extent authorized by law.   

            State Farm’s motion for a protective order is granted. 

State Farm is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 23^rd day of January 2023