Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV24615, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24615    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 74

Bush v. National Collegiate Athletics Association, et al.

Defendants University of Southern California, National Collegiate Athletic Association and Pac-12 Conference’s Motion for a Protective Order.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Reginald Bush (Bush) alleges that defendants University of Southern California (USC), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and Pac-12 Conference (Pac-12) (collectively Defendants) unjustly profited from his success as a football player in violation of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Practices Act. Defendants have filed a demurrer which is scheduled to be heard in November. Defendants seek a protective order prohibiting discovery until the Court rules on their demurrer. 

LEGAL STANDARD

After a demand for inspection or request for documents is propounded, the party to whom the demand has been issued may move for a protective order upon a showing of good cause.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.060.)  The moving party must show that the order is necessary to protect the party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.060(b).)  “The issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.”  (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.”  (Id. at p. 318.)¿¿

DISCUSSION

            Defendants ask the Court to enter a protective order prohibiting discovery while the demurrer is pending.  Defendants assert they are confident their demurrer will prevail and end the case.  Thus, Defendants argue, the discovery requests are improper and unduly burdensome.

In California, discovery is liberally granted.  (Borse v. Superiro Court (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 286, 289.)  Plaintiff is generally entitled to discovery regarding “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)  A pending demurrer does not limit a party’s discovery obligations, and Defendants’ authorities do not show otherwise. Defendants’ reliance on Terminals Equipment Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 234 and Pacific Architects Collaborative v. State of California (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 110 is misplaced because those cases are distinguishable. In those cases, the trial court stayed discovery after sustaining a demurrer. And the federal cases Defendants cite do not govern discovery under California’s Code of Civil Procedure in a state court.

            Defendants also move for a protective order on the grounds that the discovery is unduly burdensome and expensive.  The Code of Civil Procedure allows for a protective order to avoid “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.060.) To support objections based upon burden and expense, the objecting party must submit evidence substantiating those objections. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)  Defendants allege that responding to Plaintiff’s request would require a costly “physical and difficult search” for documents.  Defendants do not provide declarations establishing that their search would be costly and difficult.  Defendants do not, for example, provide, among other things, any evidence detailing the amount of time their search would take nor the number of files they will need to review.  Therefore, Defendants have not met their burden to show that Plaintiff’s discovery request is unduly burdensome and expensive.

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order.

            Defendants to give notice.