Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 25STCV01237, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01237    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED.

On 1/7/2025, Plaintiff Kayla Birdsall (Plaintiff) filed suit against General Motors (Defendant) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Law.

On 4/1/2025, Defendant moved for a protective order.

Discussion

Defendant seeks a protective order for its (1) written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims and (2) its Warranty policies and procedure manuals. (See Lukas Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

After review, the Court finds the protective order should be granted.

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense,” including 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.” (CCP § 2031.060(b)(5).) A party may request entry of an order to protect its confidential and proprietary business information at any time. (Stadish v. Sup. Ct. (Southern Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1144 [finding that “upon a proper showing a party may – even after it has waived its right to object to the production of documents, and has produced most of the documents requested – seek a protective order restricting dissemination of the documents.”].)

Here, Defendant submitted a declaration from Kimberley Lukas, GM’s Customer Experience Manager for the Business Resource Center. Ms. Lukas’ sworn testimony explains that the documents are not generally known within GM or the general public, and that care is taken to maintain that confidentiality even within GM due to their commercially sensitive nature. (Lukas Decl. ¶¶ 7-10.) As such, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contentions that Lukas’s testimony is vague or fails to identify specific protected documents or any specific competitive harms.

Moreover, in opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s proposed order runs afoul of Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 871.26 which requires automobile manufacturers to produce specified categories of documents in lemon law litigation without awaiting a discovery request. However, the fact that the Legislature does not include an express exception for the allowance of protective orders in Section 871.26(h) does not equate to a conclusion that protective orders can never be granted to any of these documents. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the legislature’s silence on this issue, taken alone, does not control statutory interpretation. (See Vitality Rehab, Inc. v. Sebelius (C.D.Cal. 2009) 641 F.Supp.2d 984, 993-994, citing U.S. v. Wells (1997) 519 U.S. 482, 496, (“we have frequently cautioned that [i]t is at best treacherous to find in congressional silence alone the adoption of a controlling rule of law”). As noted by Defendant, “While Section 871.26(h) made certain disclosures automatic, the statute does not negate the rest of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Reply, 5: 6-7.)

Given that Defendant does not seek to avoid production of these documents, but rather seeks to produce them under protection of a protective order, the Court sees no violation of section 821.26. The Court finds Defendant has established a good faith basis for confidential treatment of its information. (Evid. Code § 1061.) 

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2025

   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.