Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00934, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00934    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: C

ROYAL PLYWOOD CO., LLC v. MODERN MILL, INC.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV00934

HEARING: 04/18/24

#4

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

Plaintiff moves for a protective order on the basis that “third parties, to whom subpoenas duces tecum, have stated that they will not produce business records unless they are subject to a protective order limiting their access on a ‘need to know’ basis.” (Notice 2:7-11.)  

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion is procedurally defective, for various reasons, and must be denied.

“Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.) (CCP §2025.420(a).)

Here, no meet and confer declaration is attached to the Moving Papers. The Declaration of Robert H. Dewberry merely states that he “attempted to get opposing counsel to stipulate to a protective order but they refused.” (Dewberry Decl., ¶5.) This does not suffice. The Motion is procedurally defective, and must be denied.

Moreover, on the merits, the Court does not find a sufficient basis to grant the instant Motion. As argued in Opposition, Plaintiff is the issuing/propounding party of the subject subpoenas. It is unclear why Plaintiff would move for a protective order on behalf of the answering parties. If Plaintiff seeks to compel compliance with the subpoenas it issued, then the proper procedural vehicle would have been to file a Motion to Compel Compliance under CCP §2025.450.