Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19PSCV00779, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 19PSCV00779 Hearing Date: October 17, 2022 Dept: O
Plaintiff Northstar Freight International, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff Northstar Freight International, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
Plaintiff is an international logistic company which provides freight
shipping services to customers in China and the United States. Weihua Zhu aka
Joy Zhu (“Zhu”) is Plaintiff’s former employee. In January 2019, while still
working for Plaintiff, Zhu began working for Plaintiff’s customer and
now-competitor, Moro Freight International, Inc. (“MFI”). Zhu took the customer
contacts and shipping pricing information provided to her by Plaintiff during
her employment and used them for MFI’s benefit without Plaintiff’s consent.
On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Zhu, MFI and Does 1-25 for:
1.
Unfair
Competition in Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et
seq.
2.
Intentional
Interference with Contractual Relations
3.
Negligent
Interference with Contractual Relations
4.
Intentional
Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
5.
Negligent
Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
6.
Misappropriation
of Trade Secrets
On February 26, 2020, Zhu and MFI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiff and Roes 1-25 for:
1.
Breach of Oral Contract
2.
Unjust Enrichment
The Final Status Conference is set for August 25, 2023. Trial is set for September 8, 2023.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the court for entry of a protective order, on the basis that the court indicated, in connection with the hearing on a previous discovery motion, that it was “prepared to enter a protective order that is similar to the Los Angeles Superior Court model protective order” and instructed Plaintiff to file a motion towards that end.
On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition and for Further Deposition” was heard. (Lin Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) On May 13, 2022, the court issued a minute order, advising that it had prepared a tentative ruling dated April 28, 2022 and that the court’s findings were reflected therein, which was filed that date and incorporated into the court file. The tentative ruling provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Based on a review of Plaintiff’s filing on May 5, 2022, the only remaining
issue concerning the instant motion is the examination of a computer
Plaintiff
provided to Zhu when she worked for Plaintiff. As a result, the court
orders
that Plaintiff’s [sic] may inspect the aforementioned computer subject to
a
protective order . . . The only limitations to the expert’s examination
will be
found in the reporting and disclosure requirements found on the
protective order
the court enters. . .
The court is prepared to enter a protective order that is similar to the
Los
Angeles Superior Court model protective form, but it will not do
Plaintiff’s
counsel’s work. To the extent it seeks the court to enter such order,
Plaintiff must
file the necessary motion. To the extent Zhu seeks to have the court
enter a
modified person of the model protective form, Zhu should also file the
necessary
motion. The court disregards Exhibit B to the supplemental filing on May
10, 2022
and will not consider a request to enter into such a motion because such
request is
not properly before the court. In any event, Plaintiff’s expert may examine the
computer once the protective order has been entered . . .
(Id. [emphasis
added])
Plaintiff seeks entry of the Los Angeles Superior Court model protective order at this juncture, which he has submitted as a proposed order. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)
Counsel for Zhu and MFI, in turn, represents that they do not oppose the entry of a protective order (Niu Decl., ¶ 3), that they have submitted their own proposed protective order (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. A) and that Plaintiff has agreed to Exhibit A except for Subsection 7.3 (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Subsection 7.3 provides as follows:
The Expert may take temporarily custody and possession of the Desk Top
Computer to review and recover all
the files been deleted or damaged, and the
Parties agree to the following
protocol:
(a)
The Expert shall extract a copy of files with all the
information on the Desk Top Computer, and distribute to both counsel for
Plaintiff and Defendants (‘Expert Extract Files’).
(b)
The Defendants shall review the Expert Extract Files
and designate the portion that may be subject to this Protective Order.
(c)
For the portion of the Expert Extract Files that
Defendants object to be shared with the Plaintiff, the Parties agree to meet and
confer further to resolve the dispute.”
The court, however, unequivocally advised Zhu that “[t]o the extent Zhu seeks to have the court enter a modified person of the model protective form, Zhu should also file the necessary motion. The court disregards Exhibit B to the supplemental filing on May 10, 2022 and will not consider a request to enter into such a motion because such request is not properly before the court” (Emphasis added). Zhu’s and MFI’s request is not properly before the court. Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion at this juncture.