Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 25STCV01254, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Plaintiff, Saul Ernesto Castro, brings this Song-Beverly action against Defendant, General Motors, LLC.

On April 7, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion for Entry of Confidential Protective Order.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.060 provides that “[w]hen 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.”

“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,” including “[t]hat 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.060, subd. (b)(5).)¿¿

The burden of proof is on the party seeking the protective order to show “good cause” for the order he or she seeks. (Fairmont Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Defendant moves for a protective order which would allow GM to designate (1) warranty policies and procedure manuals, (2) Defendant’s policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement as confidential, and (3) identifying information of Defendant’s personnel and non-party consumers. Defendant argues the order is necessary because Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(h)[1] now requires manufacturers, like GM, to make an initial disclosure of confidential policies, procedures, and training materials within 60 days of the filing of a responsive pleading. Such a disclosure, Defendant argues, requires disclosure of trade secrets, propriety business information, personal identifying information, and information that will infringe on the privacy rights of Defendant and non-party consumers.

Plaintiff argues that section 871.26 requires Defendant to produce preliminary materials without a protective order.

“Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).”

The court agrees with Plaintiff that section 871.26 requires preliminary disclosures without a procedure for a protective order.[2] GM relies on Section 2031.060. However, Section 2031.060 applies only to demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents. By contrast, Section 871.26 is concerned with initial disclosures, which is not a demand for inspection of documents. Section 871.26 does not provide any procedure through which any party may seek a protective order or otherwise limit the disclosure. Section 2031.060 does not authorize the court to impose a protective order.

As to individual privacy interests: identifying information for Defendant personnel or non-party consumers is not subject to section 871.26. If such information appears in records otherwise subject to section 871.26, that information should – and in some cases must – be redacted before disclosure.

The motion for protective order is DENIED. The motion is MOOT as to personal identifying information, including information identifying non-party consumers; such material is not subject to section 871.26 and should be redacted from any disclosures made pursuant to that section.

¿¿¿

¿ Kerry Bensinger¿¿

¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿

[1] All statutory references hereinafter are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.

[2] The court also agrees with Plaintiff’s observation that Defendant does not identify a single trade secret or define any protected information to meet its burden of showing good cause.