Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Lusinsky v. Ford Motor Company, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Deem Documents Confidential is GRANTED.

Defendant seeks a protective order deeming certain documents that it produced to Plaintiff Robert Lusinsky (“Plaintiff”), in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production, confidential pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (“SPO”) (ROA 162).  (See Mtn at 6:1-11 [identifying the documents at issue].) Defendant contends that said documents contain its confidential, proprietary or trade secret information. Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s confidential designation as to said documents. (ROA 204, Ex. 1.)

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the parties have now adequately engaged in meet and confer efforts regarding the issues raised by Defendant’s Motion. (ROA 204, Ex. 1; ROA 211, Ex. 1.)

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, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:…(5) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way. (C.C.P. §2031.060(b)(5).)

The Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that the documents at issue merit protection. (SPO ¶ 4; Civil Code §3426.1(d) [definition of trade secret]; see also McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989; see generally Declaration of Jacob Doss.)

Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant has released some of the documents at issue, either publicly or to third parties, does not prevent the Court from issuing a protective order limiting dissemination of those records and Plaintiff has offered no authority to support such contention. (See Stadish v. Sup.Ct. (Southern Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1144—even where the trade secrets privilege has been waived, a protective order limiting disclosure of trade secrets may be available.) In addition, Defendant asserts that the release of prior versions of the Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual online was without permission; thus, it cannot be said that Defendant waived its right to confidentiality as to those documents.

Defendant also asserts that the dealerships and third-party vendors who possess the Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual and the Customer Relationship Center Policies and Procedures operate under contractual agreements with Ford and that “Ford protects its confidential information by limiting disclosure and access to such information both inside and outside of the company.” (Doss Decl. ¶ 6.) Thus, it appears that Ford’s materials are disseminated on a limited basis to those under contract with Ford, which supports Ford’s claim that these documents are confidential and proprietary information.

Plaintiff does not claim that he would suffer any prejudice if the Court grants the motion for protective order. As Defendant notes in its reply brief, Defendant does not oppose production of these documents to Plaintiff. It only seeks to have these documents designated confidential pursuant to the parties’ SPO.

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the motion for protective order for the documents at issue in the Motion.

The documents at issue designated confidential are ordered to remain confidential in accordance with the terms of the SPO.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections (ROA 206) are SUSTAINED as to objection nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 and OVERRULED as to objection nos. 4-9 and 11-24.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.