Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01508, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01508 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: C
DECKER v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY
CASE NO.: 23NWCV01508
HEARING: 08/01/24
#3
Moving Party to give notice.
Background
This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiff DANIEL DECKER
(“Plaintiff”) against Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“Defendant”) on May 16,
2023. 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 Protective Order, attached as Exhibit G, modifies
Paragraph 7(b) to define affiliated attorneys as attorneys of the same firm,
requires that all personnel at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office sign the Proposed
Order, revises subsection (d) to include videographers and litigation support
companies, removes subsection (f) which allows disclosure to mock jurors; and
revises 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff has 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s counsel from
retaining a copy for their file. Plaintiff’s 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.