Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV23243, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23243    Hearing Date: May 21, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED.

            On 9/26/2023, Plaintiff Roberto Rodriguez and Veronica Cervantes (collectively, Defendants) filed suit against Ford Motor Company, alleging breach of express warranty.

            On 4/02/24, Defendant moved for entry of a protective order.

Discussion

            Defendant argues good cause exists to grant Defendant’s protective order. In opposition, Plaintiffs do not dispute the need for a protective order, but seek entry of the standard LASC Model Order.

            As such, the dispute here is not whether or not a protective order is appropriate, but what form the protective order should take.

            Defendant’s proposed order used the Model Order as a working draft but makes modifications 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.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that no good cause exists because Ford previously proposed and agreed to the model protective order in another case that was litigated between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Ford, and Ford did not raise any of the issues that exist now.

However, whether or not a standard LASC Model Order was used in previous litigation does not indicate that good cause does not exist here to grant the requested relief.

After review, the Court finds good cause exists to rant the proposed order. As noted by Defendant “there is nothing in Ford’s proposed order that limits Plaintiffs’ use of documents and information that are subject to the order for their own preparation and prosecution of this case.” (Motion, 9: 25-27.) Moreover, the proposed adjustments present reasonable limitations on the use and maintenance of confidential materials.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 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.