Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 25STCV02060, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV02060 Hearing Date: May 21, 2025 Dept: 14
#10
Case Background
This is a lemon law action.
On April 11, 2025, Plaintiffs Tizoc Restaurant, Inc.
and Alejandro Cuevas filed their Complaint against Defendant General Motors,
LLC (GM).
On April 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC).
On April 11, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for a
protective order.
On May 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.
On May 14, 2025, Defendant filed a reply.
Instant Pleading
Defendant moves for a protective order which would
allow Defendant to designate (1) warranty policies and procedure manuals and
(2) Defendant’s policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for
restitution or replacement as confidential.
Defendant’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.
Discussion
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.060 provides that
“[w]hen 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.” “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,” including “[t]hat a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be
disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.” (Code
Civ. Proc., section 2031.060, subd. (b)(5).)
Here, Defendant moves for a protective order on the
grounds that Code Civ. Proc., section 871.62(h) requires Defendant to make an
initial disclosure of confidential policies, procedures, and training
materials. Defendant contends its (1) warranty policies and procedure manuals
and (2) Defendant’s policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests
for restitution or replacement are confidential.
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Code Civ. Proc.,
section 871.26 requires Defendant to produce preliminary materials without a
protective order.
Code Civ. Proc., section 871.26 (b) provides that “Within
60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all
parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other
parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g),
and (h).”
Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Code Civ.
Proc., section 871.26 requires Defendant to produce preliminary materials
without providing a procedure for a protective order. Defendant moves for this
protective order under Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.060, which only applies to
demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents. This motion
concerns the initial disclosure under Code Civ. Proc., section 871.26, which is
not a demand for inspection of documents. Section 871.26 does not provide any
procedure through which any party may seek a protective order or otherwise
limit the disclosure. The Court finds that it is not authorized to grant a
protective order as to the initial disclosure described in Code Civ. Proc.,
section 871.26. The motion for a protective order is DENIED.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.