Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV14229, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14229    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 27, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Protective Order

Moving Party: Defendants Value Price, LLC, Maxwell Lapin and Paul Goldman

Responding Party: Plaintiff Flag & Symbol, LLC

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED.

THE COURT WILL ENTER THE NOVEMBER 6, 2023 PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED BY DEFENDANTS.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Flag & Symbol, LLC sued Defendants Value Price, LLC, Maxwell Lapin, and Paul Goldman, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; and (4) negligent misrepresentations.

This action arises from the parties’ business relationship. Plaintiff supplied Defendant with hoodie sweatshirts and souvenirs for sale at Defendant’s store. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached agreements by, among other things, failing to timely comply with the agreement, and falsely claiming products were defective.

ANALYSIS

“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.” (CCP § 2031.060(b).)

Defendants move for a protective order to allow the designation of confidential and/or proprietary business information, trade secrets and/or other confidential information or documents as “confidential” and “highly confidential attorneys’ eyes only.”

Plaintiff does not oppose the imposition of protective order, but instead requests these changes: (1) remove language allowing in-house counsel access to Highly Confidential- AEO designated materials; (2) include specific language indicating that documents designated Highly Confidential-AEO would not be disclosed to Defendants Maxwell Lapin, Paul Goldman, Value Price or their employees, assistants, or associates; (3) include a $5 million liquidated damages provision; and (4) include language that would deem the identity, transactions, communications, and contact information of international suppliers as per se Highly Confidential- AEO information.

In reply, Defendants have revised the protective order (1) removing the language allowing in-house counsel access to highly confidential materials and (2) including language specifically excluding Defendants’ Maxwell Lapin, Paul Goldman, and Value Price from access to highly confidential materials.

Defendants assert the liquidated damages provision is unreasonable and infringes on the Court’s ability to oversee discovery. Defendant contends the language that would deem the identity, transactions, communications, and contact information of international suppliers as per se Highly Confidential is unnecessary as the protective order provides the parties with a system to designate and challenge the proposed confidentiality of any documents. The Court agrees.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court will enter Defendants’ second proposed protective order.