Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV32198, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32198    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.

On 8/31/2021, Plaintiff Israel Hernandez Galan aka Israel Alfonso Hernandez Galan and Edelba Romero Arellano aka Edelba Romero (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Ted Jones Ford, Inc. dba Ken Grody Ford Corporations and Ford Motor Company, alleging: (1) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Beverly Act section 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair.

            Now, Defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant) seeks a protective order.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks entry of a protective order. Notably, the dispute here is not about whether or not a protective order is needed, but rather the form that the order should take.

            Defendant contends that its proposed order uses the LASC Model Order, and requests changes to three paragraphs—Nos. 7, 8, and 21. Specifically:

Ford seeks to modify Paragraph 7 to clarify in sub-section (b) that the term “affiliated attorneys” mean attorneys in the same firm and that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office personnel who have access to Ford’s confidential documents must sign Exhibit A; to include videographers and litigation support companies with court reporters in sub-section (d); to preclude mock jurors from accessing Ford’s confidential documents because Ford has no ability to identify such persons or ensure (or confirm) their compliance, as set forth in sub-section (f); and to include non-attorneys along with experts in paragraph (g), and confirm that Ford’s confidential documents may not be shown to competitors of Ford. Ford also seeks to modify Paragraph 8 to prohibit the receiving party from posting Ford’s confidential documents to any website or advertising Ford’s documents for sale. Ford further seeks to modify Paragraph 21 to clarify the process for Plaintiffs’ counsel to return or destroy Ford’s confidential documents at the conclusion of the case, and to require the return of all confidential documents.

            (Motion, 3: 15-26.)

            In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that good cause does not exist for the proposed changes because it could conceivably prevent Plaintiffs’ counsel from disclosing the documents to any other attorneys that serve as Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, the language would require all employees—over one hundred individuals—to sign the Exhibit A form, Defendant’s proposed modification preventing access to mock jury participants is unreasonable, and the Model Order already prevents the disclosures Defendant seeks to obtain through its proposed modification.

            The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant has failed to identify what material harm it faces if the Court does not modify the LASC Model Order. For example, Defendant has not adequately articulated why the LASC model protective order language is insufficient for the purposes sought given that the Model Order already provides that “Confidential Materials shall be used by the persons receiving them only for the purposes of preparing for, conducting, participating in the conduct of, and/or prosecuting and/or defending the Proceeding, and not for any business or other purpose whatsoever.” (LASC Model Order.) Defendant also has not articulated why the burdens created by the proposed modifications, such as requiring all employees to sign the Exhibit A form, are justified. Moreover, because the LASC Model Order requires that mock jury participants sign the Exhibit A attachment and provide their address and telephone number, Defendant has failed to show that it would be unable to track or trace mock jury participants in the event confidential materials were disclosed to them.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.