Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV01035, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV01035    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

BOXIANG LIU, an individual; CHENGGUANG WU, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiffs,

vs.

 

CALIFORNIA AUTO RESOURCES SERVICE, INC., a California Corporation; BOAN YAN, aka ANDY YAN, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV01035

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

Date:   April 4, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

           

 

            I.         INTRODUCTION

            This is an Unruh action. The facts concern the lease of a vehicle by Plaintiffs. They allege that California Auto Resources Service, Inc.’s employee Andy Yan made comments to Plaintiff Boxiang Liu reflecting animus based on his gender identity and gender expression, and that Yan made physical threats to Plaintiff Chengguang Wu.        

            Before the Court is a motion for protective order. Plaintiffs seek an order that they need not respond to the Request For Production of Documents, Set One, served on them by California Auto on January 16, 2023. Plaintiff have not set forth an adequate basis for the requested relief.  The motion must therefore be denied.   

 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. §2031.060 (a) provides that when an inspection demand has been made the party to whom the demand has been directed may promptly move for a protective order. Subdivision (b) provides that 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.”

 

III.      ANALYSIS

            As the moving parties, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. They do not offer any such evidence in this motion. Instead, their motion (and the underlying meet and confer letters) focus on perceived deficiencies with the Request for Production. The defect that Plaintiffs’ counsel (Michael Chen) met and conferred about initially is that defense counsel failed to confirm his email address before serving the discovery electronically. This requirement is set forth in Code Civ. Proc. §1010.6(b)(3): “Before first serving a represented person electronically, the person effecting service shall confirm the appropriate electronic service address for the counsel being served.” Plaintiffs have not offered any legal authority that failure to take the step of confirming an email address demonstrates an “unwarranted annoyance,” or any of the other bases for a protective order. It is an especially hard showing to make here, since Mr. Chen acknowledges that he was served at the correct email address.

            For legal authority, Plaintiffs rely on the order of a trial court in Los Angeles Superior Court. Exhibit E to Chen Declaration. Obviously. a trial court order is not binding authority. Here, it is not even persuasive. In the other Superior Court case, a motion to compel responses failed because the moving party had failed to confirm the address prior to propounding discovery. The moving party could not show the discovery had been properly served and therefore, arguably, was not entitled to an order compelling responses. That is very different from the circumstances here, where Plaintiffs are attempting to show that failure to confirm an email address demonstrates a basis for a protective order.   

            In a later meet and confer letter, Mr. Chen also points out that the Request for Production was propounded on both plaintiffs rather than just one. Again, no authority is offered that would support a finding by this Court that a protective order is needed to save Plaintiffs from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.

 

IV.      ORDER

            Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is denied.         

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

 

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT