Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV45736, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45736    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the umbrella protective order is DENIED.

            On 12/15/2024, Plaintiff Windi Palmer (Plaintiff) filed suit against Remet Corporation and Remet Alcohols, Inc., alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of implied-in-fact contract; (3) failure to pay wages when due in violation of California Labor Code section 204; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (5) failure to pay all wages due on separation; (6) constructive discharge; (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (8) accounting.

            On 2/13/2024, Plaintiff moved to modify the discovery protective order.

Discussion   

            Plaintiff seeks an order modifying the umbrella discovery protective order entered on 6/7/2023, pursuant to stipulation of the parties. In particular, Plaintiff seeks a modification of the order to include her husband, Michael Palmer, among the individuals to whom Defendants’ “Confidential Materials” may be disclosed under the terms of the protective order.

            After review, the Court finds good cause does not exist to grant the requested relief.

            First, Plaintiff voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Protective Order, which knowingly precluded Michael Palmer from being able to review Confidential Documents. As noted by Remet in opposition, “[s]ince early 2023, Remet has steadfastly refused to allow Michael Palmer to be covered under the Protective Order or to review Confidential Documents. Remet has never deviated from its position especially since Plaintiff has testified that Michael Palmer was complicit in assisting her in stealing Remet’s trade secrets. More significantly, Remet's position has been consistent even before the preparation of the Protective Order as Remet has never given Michael Palmer permission to review any of its Confidential Documents, which include financial records, and has never authorized Plaintiff to show Michael Palmer any of Remet's Confidential Documents.”  (Opp., 1: 19-24.) Accordingly, the terms of the Protective Order as they concern Michael Palmer were drafted with an understanding that they included a bar on Michael Palmer reviewing confidential materials, and Plaintiff voluntarily agreed to that term.

            Second, Plaintiff’s arguments as to why the protective order must be modified are insufficiently supported. Plaintiff argues that the order should be modified because of Michael Palmer's "familiarity with the issues,” because he has already seen many of the financial documents he is now excluded from seeing, and because he is the only individual who can properly analyze the financial statements. (See Motion, 1-9.) However, as noted by Remet, Plaintiff “fails to explain how or why Michael Palmer—Plaintiff's spouse, a non-party, and someone who has never worked for Remet—is somehow in a unique and superior position such that Plaintiff's expert would need the assistance of Michael Palmer.” (Opp., 5: 21-22.) Indeed, Plaintiff has not persuasively shown that it would be “virtually impossible” for the expert forensic accounting firm to understand and explain Defendants’ audited financial statements or Plaintiff’s monthly reports, and that only Mr. Palmer, a non-expert witness who does not have a financial background, is uniquely able to “break down the discrepancies, explain them and guide us through his analysis.” (Memo. 9: 7-8.)

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the umbrella protective order is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2024

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.