Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV00171, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00171, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00171 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Felix Preciado, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order to Govern Production of Confidential Materials

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion for entry of protective order to govern production of confidential materials with respect to the revisions to the LASC Model Protective Order. However, the Court will grant the motion to the extent Ford will sign the LASC Model Protective Order as drafted by the Court without the proposed revisions.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. On January 16, 2024, plaintiffs Felix Preciado and Eudelia Preciado (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford), Puente Hills Ford, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company DBA Puente Hills Ford, and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty and negligent repair.

On July 30, 2024, Ford moved for a protective order. On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On August 28, 2024, Ford replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subds. (a), (b).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060, subdivision (a), Ford was required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs before bringing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a).) The Court finds the parties’ efforts to meet and confer satisfactory. (Moawad Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.)

Summary of Arguments

Ford seeks to modify three paragraphs from the model protective order provided by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, namely paragraphs 7, 8, and 21. Ford seeks to modify paragraph 7 by removing mock jury participants from the class of persons who may view confidential materials. Ford also seeks to require the parties’ respective attorneys, firms, in-house counsel, legal staff, and outside experts to execute the certification form attached as Exhibit A to the model protective order (the Certification Form). Ford seeks to modify paragraph 8 of the model protective order to prevent confidential materials online and not advertise, publicize, or offer such confidential materials for sale. Ford then seeks to modify paragraph 21 to require the return of Ford’s confidential documents or their destruction at the end of the case. Ford notes that the model protective order contains language at the top indicating that it is meant to be an initial working draft. Ford contends the protective order is necessary to ensure reasonable protection of confidential information, and that the documents at issue contain Ford’s confidential business information regarding the handling of customer complaints and Ford’s Warranty and Policy Manual.

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend Ford failed to timely move for a protective order, as Plaintiff served the discovery requests seeking the purportedly confidential information in March 2024, and Ford did not file the motion until months later. Plaintiffs then contend that Ford fails to show good cause for seeking the proposed modifications. Plaintiffs contend that Ford has previously agreed to the model protective order in other cases and that Ford fails to show how the proposed modifications would prejudice Ford if they were not granted. Plaintiffs contend Ford’s proposed modifications limiting which attorneys can access the documents is unnecessary because they would unduly inhibit Plaintiffs’ counsel from potentially having co-counsel, and the model protective order would already prohibit the use of these documents for any purpose unrelated to this action. Plaintiffs also contend Ford’s proposed modification requiring all Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm’s employees to sign the Certification Form would be a logistical nightmare, plus the model protective order already requires firms to apprise their employees of the restrictions of the protective order.

Plaintiffs then contend Ford’s proposed modification preventing access to mock jury participants is unreasonable because the model protective order already requires mock jury participants to sign the certification form, which provides the participants to provide their address and telephone number. Plaintiffs contend this would unduly inhibit Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare for trial using mock jury participants. Plaintiffs further contend the proposed modifications regarding the dissemination of the documents or confidential information is unwarranted given the protections contained in the model protective order, as paragraph 8 of the model protective order already limits the confidential materials only to the case and for no other purposes. Plaintiffs finally contend the proposed modifications to paragraph 21 regarding the return or destruction of the documents after the case is over is unwarranted because Plaintiffs’ counsel should be able to retain a complete copy of the case file.

In reply, Ford contends its motion is timely because Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060, subdivision (a), does not contain mandatory language regarding the promptness of making the request. Ford then contends Plaintiffs have not established that Ford’s proposed modifications are improper, inappropriate, or unnecessary, noting that it is irrelevant whether Ford previously agreed to the model protective order in a different case because the facts are not necessarily the same, and Plaintiffs’ counsel similarly agreed to Ford’s proposed protective order in a different matter earlier this year. Ford then largely reiterates the bases set forth in its moving papers regarding the purported need for the proposed modifications.

Analysis

The responding party waives its right to object to a request for production of documents, and thereby the right to seek a protective order regarding the production of the documents requested, if the responding party fails to timely respond to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Id., § 2031.260, subd. (a); Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a); 5. [8:1452] Protective Orders:, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8H-5.) But, even if the responding party has waived the right to object to the request for production of documents, the responding party may still later seek a protective order regarding the dissemination of the documents requested. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 317 (Nativi).) Here, Ford provided responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Moawad Decl., Ex. A.) The issue then is not really the production of the document themselves, but their dissemination after they have been produced. (See Nativi, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 317.) Thus, the Court finds Ford’s motion is timely.

With respect to the modifications sought, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs, and does not find Ford’s proposed modifications necessary or particularly helpful for the parties. Ford’s proposed modifications to paragraph 7 of the model protective order limiting Plaintiffs’ counsel’s access to only attorneys within the same firm would be overly restrictive by potentially interfering with the retention of co-counsel. The model protective order already limits the use of the confidential documents to this case only, so there should not be any concern about the documents getting passed on to other firms for use in other cases or for purposes unrelated to this case. (See LASC Model Protective Order, ¶ 8.)

The Court then finds the request to require all employees of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm to execute the Certification Form to the model protective order to be onerous and unnecessary. The model protective order would already obligate Plaintiffs’ counsel to fully apprise non-lawyer staff of the confidential nature of these documents and the restrictions imposed thereon via the protective order. (See LASC Model Protective Order, ¶ 7, subd. (b)(1).)

The Court also finds the proposed removal of mock jury participants from the scope of paragraph 7 of the model protective order to be excessive, as it would unduly inhibit Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ability to prepare for trial. Also, the model protective order already requires mock jury participants to sign the Certification Form, which requires the participants to provide their contact information. (See LASC Model Protective Order, Ex. A.)

For paragraph 8 of the model protective order, the Court finds it already adequately addresses Ford’s concerns about dissemination online or being offered for sale or advertisement. Paragraph 8 specifically limits the use of the confidential materials to this case, and expressly excludes their use for any business purposes or other purposes unrelated to this case. (LASC Model Protective Order, ¶ 8.)

For paragraph 21 of the model protective order, the Court finds Ford’s proposed modification unwarranted. Paragraph 21 already governs the disposition of confidential materials after the case has settled or otherwise terminated and provides the procedures for returning the confidential materials, destroying them, or asking the Court for guidance on the disposition of other materials. (LASC Model Protective Order, ¶ 21.) The Court finds Ford’s proposed modification excessive, as it could unduly inhibit Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ability to maintain its case file, such as work product and copies of pleadings. Also, as has been noted herein, the model protective order already limits the use of the confidential materials to this case only, so Plaintiffs’ counsel would be prohibited from using the materials in other cases. (See LASC Model Protective Order, ¶ 8.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion with respect to the revisions to the LASC Model Protective Order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.