Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 25STCV01265, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV01265 Hearing Date: May 6, 2025 Dept: 61
NYESHA T. ARTIAGA, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Tentative:
The Court GRANTS Defendant GM’s Motion for Entry of a Confidential Protective Order.
Counsel for Defendant General Motors, LLC to provide Notice.
Analysis:
Meet and Confer
GM’s counsel provides email threads showing its meet and confer efforts. (Gale Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 5.) The Court finds the meet and confer requirements were satisfied.
GM seeks a protective order pursuant to CCP 2031.060 (b) to protect is confidential and proprietary information.
Parties’ Arguments
GM argues that good cause exists for entry of GM’s proposed confidential protective order because the information requested by Plaintiffs is proprietary and confidential internal policies and procedures. (Mot. at p.4.) GM further argues that there would be no prejudice since the proposed protective order is based on the Los Angeles Model Stipulated Confidential Protective Order. (Id. at p.7.) Also, GM would suffer prejudice because the sensitive documents would result in competitive harm. (Id.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that GM’s failure to provide document-specific analysis or evidence of actual harm results in the denial of this motion as the documents are governed under CCP 871.26’s mandatory disclosure. (Opp. at p. 6.) Plaintiffs further argue that GM’s proposed protective order would be prejudicial because the order creates unnecessary procedural hurdles that slow down the discovery process and limits Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare their case. (Id. at p.10.) In reply, GM argues that Plaintiffs misinterpret CCP 871.26 because it neither restricts nor prohibits GM from seeking an order to protect its confidential information. (Reply at p.2.) Moreover, GM argues that Plaintiffs fail to cite to any statutory authority preventing a protective order. (Id.)
Good Cause
GM has shown that good cause exists for the protective order because the discovery sought is confidential and proprietary information. In support, GM provides the declaration of Kimberley Lukas who is the GM Customer Experience Manager. (Lukas Decl. ¶ 1.) Kimberley Lukas declares she reviewed the contents of the requested discovery documents. (Id. at ¶ 4.) She states that “GM does not publish or otherwise make these materials and policies and procedures publicly available, so non-GM personnel could not find these documents anywhere except through the lawsuits in which GM has produced them in response to discovery requests.” (Id. at ¶ 9.) Moreover, the policies and procedure materials that GM must produce are not generally available within GM. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Additionally, she states that this “type of information is commercially sensitive business information that is not made available to the general public, the disclosure of which would cause GM LLC competitive harm.” (Id. at ¶ 10.)
The Court also notes that although CCP 871.26 makes the disclosure of the requested discovery mandatory, it is silent as to whether a protective order is barred. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26.) Plaintiffs did not provide any legal authority supporting their interpretation of CCP 871.26.
Based on the foregoing, the Court notes GM has shown good cause.
Lack of Prejudice
The Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the protective order because the proposed order does not limit Plaintiffs use of the materials in the litigation. (See Proposed Stipulation and Protective Order.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument that the protective order would create unnecessary procedural hurdles and undermine the legislature’s intent is purely speculative. (Gale Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 2.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs failed to show that they would be prejudiced by the protective order.
The Court GRANTS Defendant GM’s Motion for Entry of a Confidential Protective Order.