Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff Francisco Perez Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kuldeep Shukla (“Shukla”) and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) for negligence, negligent hiring training and supervision and strict products liability.

On March 29, 2021, Lyft filed an answer. On May 7, 2021, Shukla filed an answer.

On September 15, 2022, Lyft filed a Motion for Protective Order to be heard on October 11, 2022. On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On October 4, 2022, Lyft filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 9, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Lyft requests the Court impose a protective order to prohibit the dissemination of the information to the general public.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion as to the subject of liability insurance.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under CCP §2031.060, “(a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) 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: (1) That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all; (2) That the time specified in Section 2031.260 to respond to the set of demands, or to a particular item or category in the set, be extended; (3) That the place of production be other than that specified in the demand; (4) That the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions; (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; (6) That the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.”

Under CCP §2030.090, when interrogatories have been propounded, the responding order may move for a protective order for good cause. If a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions unless there is substantial justification. 

California Civil Code § 3426.1, adopted in whole from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, is: (d) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3426.1.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff served discovery requests that would require Lyft to produce information, documents and/or testimony that could be considered commercially sensitive, as it consists of trade secrets and confidential information. Specifically, Lyft identifies its operational management software system (“TOM”) and Zendesk, a proprietary system used in its day-to-day business. Both of these are used in Lyft’s operation of the Lyft App, as well as handling reports related to safety. Given that Lyft has direct competitors, like other ride-share companies, who could potentially benefit from gaining this knowledge in modeling their own systems on these processes, the Court finds grounds to consider this information to be a trade secret. Furthermore, Lyft has taken reasonable steps to maintain secrecy over these programs. Lyft makes employees sign confidentiality agreements and stores the information about these programs on private servers. All visitors are required to sign NDAs. The Court finds that there is good cause to impose a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of the information to the general public.

Plaintiff requests that the Court specifically deny the protective order as to the subject of liability insurance, citing that CCP §2017.210 provides that a party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment. The Court does not find this at odds with Lyft’s request; parties both agree that liability insurance is discoverable. Lyft merely requests that this information be provided pursuant to protective order to prohibit dissemination to the general public. The information will still be provided. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.