Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01645, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01645, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01645 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: C

Herrera, et al. v. Ford Motor company

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01645

HEARING: 1/10/24 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED with the limitations set forth below.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant) moves for entry of a protective order.

Background

On December 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Emilia Herrera and Ramon Herrara (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendant for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. The parties have met and conferred regarding entering into a protective order and have agreed upon using the Los Angeles Superior Court Model Order (LASC Order) as the template for the protective order.

Legal Standard

“When 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. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2031.060(a).)

“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. This protective order may include… the following directions…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).)

Discussion

Defendant seeks to make three changes to the LASC Order. Its Proposed Order modifies Paragraph 7(b) to define affiliated attorneys as attorneys of the same firm, require that all personnel at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office sign the Proposed Order, revise subsection (d) to include videographers and litigation support companies, remove subsection (f) which allows disclose to mock jurors, and revise subsection (g) to include non-attorney experts. The Proposed Order also modifies Paragraph 8 to prohibit posting confidential documents to any website or advertising them for sale. Finally, the Proposed Order modifies Paragraph 21 to require that Plaintiffs’ counsel return or destroy all confidential documents when the case concludes.

Plaintiff argues that defining affiliated attorneys as attorneys of the same firm is too narrow and would prejudice Plaintiffs because their counsel would not be able to share the documents with other attorneys serving as co-counsel or contracted in, such as trial counsel. The Court finds that the Proposed Order should not be read as prohibiting outside counsel from being able to review the confidential material, however, that outside counsel must first sign the Proposed Order prior to being given access. Subject to this limitation, Defendant’s request to define affiliated attorneys as attorneys of the same firm is GRANTED.

Defendant argues that requiring all personnel at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office to sign the Proposed Order is necessary because it would be as easy to sign the Proposed Order as giving the oral affirmation to be bound by it. However, the Court finds that requiring plaintiff’s counsel in lemon law cases such as these to continually distribute protective orders, require all employees sign the orders, collect and retain all signed orders, and ensure compliance with the requests would be an undue burden. Thus, Defendant’s request to require all personnel sign the Proposed Order is DENIED.

Defendant argues that removing subsection (g) which allows disclosure to mock jurors is necessary because Defendant is not able to identify and ensure compliance with the Proposed Order. It asserts that it cannot confirm the contact information of mock jurors. However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have a greater interest in being allowed access to preparing for trial in a manner most advantageous to their case and Defendant should not be given the means to restrict Plaintiffs’ counsel’s trial preparation. Thus, Defendant’s request to remove subsection (g) is DENIED.

Plaintiff has not opposed the other modifications to Paragraph 7. Thus, Defendant’s request to modify subsections (d) and (g) are GRANTED.

Defendant argues that limiting Paragraph 8 to prohibit posting confidential documents to any website or advertising them for sale is necessary to clarify the existing language in the Paragraph. However, Paragraph 8 of the LASC Order limits the use of confidential information to “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.” Thus, the LASC Order’s language already prohibits the posting of confidential documents to any website or advertising them for sale. Therefore, Defendant’s request to add limitations to Paragraph 8 is DENIED.

Defendant argues that modifying Paragraph 21 to require return or destruction of confidential documents is necessary to ensure the long-term protection of its confidential documents. However, Defendant has not provided a compelling reason to require return or destruction of the documents in this case and prohibiting Plaintiffs’ counsel from retaining a copy for their file. Plaintiffs’ counsel has an interest maintaining a complete file for its cases and those documents would be subject to the continuing protection of the Proposed Order. Thus, Defendant’s request to modify Paragraph 21 is DENIED.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED with the above limitations.