Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV21405, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21405    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 74

Fernandez v. Ford Motor Company et al.

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Protective Order

BACKGROUND 

The motion arises from a Song-Beverly complaint.

Plaintiff Urbano Fernandez filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company and LAD-F, Inc. alleging breach of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty.

LEGAL STANDARD

Parties must “promptly” move for a protective order. Generally speaking, “promptly” means 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.) 

DISCUSSION

            Ford moves for a protective order in response to Plaintiff’s discovery request served on October 21, 2024.  Typically, a party would be expected to file for a protective order within the 30 days provided for discovery responses.  (Willis, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d at 289, fn. 5.)  Ford filed for the Protective Order on January 17, 2025, after failing to agree on December 27, 2024, on the terms of the protective order.  (See Maggio Decl., ¶ 3.)  The Court finds that Ford met the procedural requirements for a Motion for Protective Order.

Ford requests a protective order be issued to modify Paragraph 7 of the LASC Model Protective Order to (1) limit affiliated attorneys to the same firm and require every non-lawyer who is provided access to the material sign Exhibit A agreeing to be bound by the protective order’s terms; (2) to include videographers and vendors who provide litigation services; (3) to exclude mock jury participants, and provide that no disclosure shall be made to a competitor of Ford.  Additionally, Ford requests that court modify Paragraph 8 to exclude disclosure on any website and prohibit the sale or publicizing of Confidential Materials.  Finally, Ford requests that the procedures for returning and destroying documents be changed. 

            Defendant must show that there is good cause for a protective order.  Defendant argues that the protective order is warranted to protect trade secrets, including Defendant’s classifying of customer concerns and when it decides to elevate customer concerns to improve their customer care techniques and processes, warranty policies, and repurchasing procedures.  Defendant contends that this information would benefit competitors who would not be obligated to develop their own processes for customer communications, warranty policies, and repurchasing procedures.  (Barron Decl., ¶ 4-12.)  Defendant also contends that these manuals, policies, and procedures 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.

Paragraph 7

Defendant requests that Paragraph 7 be amended to (1) define affiliated attorneys to include only attorneys in the same firm; (2) include videographers and litigation support companies in section (d); (3) remove subsection (f); (4) include all non-attorney consultants with experts and require that Defendant’s documents not be shown to competitors. Defendant has not established that the LASC Model Protective Order is insufficient to protect their confidential materials. The Court declines to modify paragraph 7.

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 the documents, and that the documents cannot be offered for sale, advertised, or publicized. 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.

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 Plaintiff’s maintaining a complete copy for Plaintiff’s files would still require that the documents be protected in compliance with the protective order. The Court declines to revise Paragraph 21.

CONCLUSION 

The Motion for Protective Order different from the model order is denied.