Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV21078, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21078    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 31, 2024, Plaintiff Lina Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ashley Tisdale and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On December 29, 2023, the Court granted the motion to strike filed by Defendant Ashley French (erroneously sued as Ashley Tisdale) (“Defendant”) and struck the phrase “Loss of society, love, protection, companionship, consortium, and other related injuries and damages” from the complaint. 

On February 5, 2024, Defendant filed an answer. 

On September 17, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order re: public disclosure of deposition testimony.  The motion was set for hearing on November 6, 2024.  On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.  On October 30, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for February 27, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court to issue a protective order (1) to prevent the disclosure of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video to any third party not affiliated with this litigation, specifically media outlets and tabloids and (2) to restrict the use of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video for any purpose other than in connection with this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 provides in part: 

“(a) 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. 

“(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: 

* * *

 “(5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions. 

* * *

 “(g) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on those terms and conditions that are just. 

“(h) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (a), (b)(5), (g), (h).) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant asks the Court to issue a protective order (1) to prevent the disclosure of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video to any third party not affiliated with this litigation, specifically media outlets and tabloids and (2) to restrict the use of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video for any purpose other than in connection with this lawsuit.  Defendant is a well-known actress and singer and is routinely subject to media and tabloid coverage.  Celebrity tabloids have already published articles about this case. 

According to Defendant, Plaintiff and/or her counsel have made comments to celebrity tabloid TMZ.  In addition, Defendant contends, after the auto collision, Plaintiff created and published multiple videos on a social media platform which revealed information about Defendant’s driver’s license and license plate.  Although Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a proposed protective order to maintain the confidentiality of Defendant’s deposition, Plaintiff has refused to meet and confer about the protective order. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that a protective order would limit her right to conduct discovery.  But Plaintiff fails to show how an order preventing the parties, counsel, and witnesses from disseminating Defendant's deposition testimony and video to third parties or using them for purposes unrelated to this litigation would restrict Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery. 

Plaintiff also argues that she has no intention of releasing discovery materials to third parties.  Yet Plaintiff admits that, after the accident, she “took to social media to post about the accident” and posted photographs from the accident showing damage to the vehicles.  (Opposition p. 3.)  And Plaintiff does not deny that she previously published information about Defendant on a social media platform or that she and/or Plaintiff’s counsel have made comments to celebrity tabloid TMZ. 

The Court finds good cause and grants Defendant’s request for a protective order.  The Court (1) prohibits disclosure of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video to any third party not affiliated with this litigation, specifically media outlets and tabloids and (2) prohibits the use of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video for any purpose except this lawsuit.

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Ashley French (erroneously sued as Ashley Tisdale) for a protective order.  The Court (1) prohibits disclosure of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video to any third party not affiliated with this litigation, specifically media outlets and tabloids and (2) prohibits the use of Defendant’s deposition testimony and video for any purpose except this lawsuit.  The prohibitions apply to the parties, counsel, witnesses, consultants, and their employees and agents.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.