Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV16874, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16874    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 74

Stephanie Salto Soto v. Liberty Global, LLC, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Stephanie Salto Soto (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Liberty Global, LLC, Ingenious, LLC, Adam Alvardo, and Marc Lelah (Defendants).       In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: discrimination; harassment; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; failure to provide reasonable accommodations; negligent supervision and retention; assault; retaliation; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and declaratory judgment.

            On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for a protective order.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “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, subd. (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. This protective order may include […] [t]hat the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (b)(4).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff seeks a protective order limiting dissemination of Plaintiff’s medical records concerning her pregnancy, in addition to a third party’s medical records, that Plaintiff has agreed to produce in discovery. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. 2, § 7, ¶¶ 4, 8; Ex. 3; Ex. 6; Motion, p. 5:6-9.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration details his efforts to discuss the proposed protective order with Defendants’ counsel from February 27, 2023, to September 11, 2023. (Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 2-8.) Defendants appear to misapprehend the difference between Plaintiff putting her health at issue by filing her lawsuit versus limiting public dissemination of confidential medical records. The court finds unpersuasive each of Defendants’ argument against a protective order for those records. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order.

            The court grants Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for sanctions in full because he is the prevailing party and Defendants lack substantial justification for opposing the protective order. Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has substantiated his request with an hourly breakdown of work performed. (Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 9-12.) Thus, the court will award Plaintiff’s counsel $2,324.77 in attorney fees ($450 x 5 hours + $74.77 in costs).

CONCLUSION

                The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. The court orders Defendants’ counsel to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $2,324.77 in attorney fees by February 12, 2024.

                Plaintiff shall give notice.