Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV16656, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV16656 Hearing Date: May 14, 2025 Dept: 14
#12
Case Background
This is an action for malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), defamation, and
false light. Plaintiff alleges Defendant brought a frivolous lawsuit against
her in another case, 23STCV14890, where the court there granted Plaintiff’s
anti-SLAPP special motion to strike.
On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff Vanessa Valdes filed her
Complaint against Defendant Stewart Lucas Murrey.
On February 24, 2025, Murrey filed his Cross-Complaint
against Valdes.
On April 18, 2025, Valdes filed a motion for a
protective order and a motion to strike.
On May 1, 2025, Murrey filed oppositions.
Instant Pleading
Valdes moves for a protective order.
Valdes moves to strike scandalous or immaterial
allegations from the Cross-Complaint.
Decision
Valdes’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.
Valdes’s motion to strike is DENIED.
Discussion
1.
Protective order
Valdes moves under Code Civ. Proc., sections 2017.020
and 2025.420 for a protective order preventing Murrey from disseminating
discovery materials, publishing or sharing documents or false narratives about
this case in public, issuing excessive or duplicative discovery requests, and filing
future pleadings or motions without leave of court.
Code Civ. Proc., section 2017.020 provides that “the
court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden,
expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood
that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order
by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”
Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.420 pertains to
depositions. Because this motion does not concern a deposition, the section is
not relevant here.
Valdes’s motion does not contain a meet and confer
declaration as required by Code Civ. Proc., section 2017.020. Even if it did,
the motion is unsupported by any evidence or argument that Murrey is
disseminating discovery materials or issuing excessive discovery requests.
Additionally, Valdes provides no legal authority supporting her request to
prohibit Murrey from filing future pleadings or motions. Because there is no
evidence or authority before the Court which would permit it to make such a
protective order, the motion is DENIED.
Although Murrey requests sanctions against Valdes, he
fails to propose an amount of sanctions or explain the demand for sanctions. The
Court declines to award sanctions.
2.
Motion to Strike
Valdes moves to strike the following:
1. Descriptions
of Plaintiff as a psychopath and other inflammatory name-calling,
2. Accusations
that Plaintiff is running a “GoFundMe scam” or filming an “illegal documentary”
3. Any
claims of “criminal invasions” or comparisons to criminal conduct.
“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading
must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken, except if the motion
seeks to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a).)
Here, Valdes fails to quote the portions sought to be
stricken in full in violation of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a).
Therefore, the motion to strike is DENIED.
Conclusion
Valdes’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.
Valdes’s motion to strike is DENIED.