Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV10659, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10659    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: 74

Gerardo Garcia Espinosa and Gemima Luna Reyes v. Ford Motor Company

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order.

BACKGROUND 

            This motion arises from a breach of warranty claim for negligent repair.

            On May 12, 2023, plaintiffs Gerardo Garcia Espinosa and Gemima Luna Reyes (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint for breach of express warranty against defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant).

LEGAL STANDARD

¿      Parties must “promptly” move for a protective order, generally, parties must seek the protective order before expiration of the time required for a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.060, subd. (a); Willis v. Superior Court (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 277, 289, fn. 5.) A protective order may be granted to protect any party or expert from “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.250, subd. (b).)  This includes “trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development or commercial information.”  (Id., subd. (b)(5).) Good cause must be shown for the protective order, and the issuance and formulation of the protective order is in the Court’s discretion.  (See, e.g., Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-7; Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.) 

“A party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper.”  (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) If “good cause” is shown, the court may grant whatever relief is just, including: (1) quashing the demand because it was not timely served; (2) changing the date or place for the exchange of expert witness information; (3) specifying terms and conditions for the exchange to proceed; (4) dividing the parties into sides on the basis of their interests in the action, and designating which retained experts shall be deemed employed by each side; and (5) ordering any party or side to reduce the number of expert witnesses designated by that party or side. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.250, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION 

Timeliness

Parties must “promptly” move for a protective order, generally, parties must seek the protective order before expiration of the time required for a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.060, subd. (a); Willis v. Superior Court (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 277, 289, fn. 5.) Plaintiffs served the discovery seeking the purportedly confidential information in November 2023.  Defendant claims that they began discovery responses on January 5, 2024, provided supplemental responses on April 2, 2024, and July 12, 2024, and intend to provide additional supplemental responses. Defendant filed the motion for protective order on July 17, 2024. The Court finds that the motion was filed “promptly” after an agreement could not be reached between the parties regarding the protective order.

Merits

Defendant requests a protective order be issued to modify Paragraph 7 to (1) define affiliated attorney’s to include the office personnel who have access to confidential documents; (2) to include videographers and litigation support companies in section (d); (3) to remove sub-section (g); (4) to include non-attorney’s with experts and require that Defendant’s documents not be shown to competitors; in Paragraph 8 to (5) provide that the receiving party does not post any confidential documents to an website or advertise Defendant’s documents and for sale; in Paragraph 21 to (6) clarify the process for destruction or return of Defendant’s confidential documents.

            Defendant must show that there is good cause for a protective order and that there is good cause to modify the LASC model protective order.  Defendant argues that the protective order is warranted to protect trade secrets, including how Defendant classifies customer concerns and when it decides to elevate customer concerns to improve their customer care techniques and processes, warranty policies, and repurchasing procedures.  Defendant alleges that this information would benefit competitors who would not be obligated to develop their own processes for customer communications, warranty policies, and repurchasing procedures.  (Doss Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11, 12.)  Defendant also alleges that these manuals were the product of time and significant cost and are unreleased and unique to Defendant.  (Id.)

            Defendant successfully shows that these manuals represent trade secrets and a protective order is warranted.

a.      Paragraph 7

Defendant requests that Paragraph 7 be amended 7 to (1) define affiliated attorneys to including only attorneys in the same firm and include the office personnel who have access to confidential documents; (2) to include videographers and litigation support companies in section (d); (3) to remove subsection (g)[1]; (4) to include non-attorney’s with experts and require that Defendant’s documents not be shown to competitors.

Generally, the Court’s Model Protective Order is not modified unless a showing of good cause for additional protections is necessary.  As part of that showing, Defendant needs to identify why the model protections are insufficient for their particular documents.  Defendant would need to allege a heightened need for privacy for their confidential material than other materials typically subject to the LASC Model Protective Order.  Defendant has not established that the generally accepted LASC Model Protective Order is insufficient to protect their confidential materials.

The Court declines to modify paragraph 7.

b.      Paragraph 8

Defendant requests that Paragraph 8 be revised to include a specific provision stating that the documents are not posted online where third parties may access, and that they not be offered for sale, advertised, or publicized.  

Defendant does not provide good cause for need additional protection when Paragraph 8 already requires that the “Confidential Materials shall be used by the persons receiving them only for… the Proceeding, and not for any business or other purpose whatsoever.” 

The Court declines to revise Paragraph 8.

c.       Paragraph 21

Defendant requests that Paragraph 21 be revised to require that Plaintiffs destroy or return all files, not allowing Plaintiffs to maintain a copy for their files. 

Defendant does not provide good cause for the need for all files to be returned if Plaintiffs’ maintaining of a complete copy for their files would still require that the documents be protected in compliance with the protective order.

The Court declines to revise Paragraph 21.

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Defendant’s motion for a protective order.