Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 25STCV01263, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01263    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 74

Nunez v. General Motors LLC

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for a Protective Order

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a Song-Beverly action.

Plaintiff Lizeth Nunez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant).

Defendant moves for entry of a protective order.

LEGAL STANDARD

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(b).)  This includes “trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development or commercial information.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.250(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

            Defendant moves for a protective order on the grounds that Code of Civil Procedure section 871.62(h) requires that Defendant make initial disclosures of confidential policies and procedures.  A protective order may be granted to protect trade secrets.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.250(b)(5).)  When determining a trade secret, the Court considers: “(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of [the] business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in [the] business; (3) the extent of measures taken [] to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to [the business] and to [the] competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended [] in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.”  (Uribe v. Howie (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 194, 208.) 

Defendant contents that its policies for procedures for handling warranty claims and repurchase requests are proprietary and confidential.  (Gale Decl., Ex. 3 Lukas Decl., ¶¶ 7-10.)  The subject materials are generally not available to Defendant’s employees and cannot be printed.  (Lukas Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7.)  The Defendant also does not publish the materials.  (Lukas Decl., ¶ 9.)  The information is unknown to the public and only known to a limited number of employees.  Additionally, the information is valuable to Defendant because its competitors would gain economic advantage through the disclosure.  The Court finds sufficient evidence that the categories of information Defendant seeks to protect are confidential trade secrets. 

Plaintiff argues that since Code of Civ. Proc. Section 871.26 requires Defendant to produce the materials, that permitting a protective order undermines the legislative scheme.  Although Plaintiff is correct that Defendant is required to produce the materials at issue under the statute, it does not prohibit Defendant from moving for a protective order.  Defendant does not seek to limit discovery, rather, Defendant seeks to minimize distribution. 

Thus, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for a protective order.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendant’s motion and will sign the Los Angeles Superior Court Model Protective Order following its submission.

            Defendant to give notice.