Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01520, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling
If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.
Case Number: 22VECV01520 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: T
22VECV01520 MARTHA MICHEL-AQUINO, et al. vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY
PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENTS AND COURT'S RESPONSE
Ford seeks to limit the attorneys who are permitted access to the confidential documents to only those attorneys within the same firm. (Proposed protective order ¶ 7.) This limitation could conceivably prevent Plaintiff’s counsel from disclosing the documents to any other attorneys that serve as Plaintiff’s co-counsel or as a contract attorney.” Defendant’s request does not explain why the existing form order does not protect it in this respect. Why not say that the documents can be disclosed to other attorneys who are counsel of record and contract attorneys working on this case, and they have to sign Exhibit A?
“Ford seeks to require that all employees at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm sign the “Exhibit A” form. (Proposed protective order ¶ 7.)” Defendant’s request does not explain why the existing form order does not protect it in this respect or why this is not burdensome. The request is DENIED. Furthermore, there is no evidence that every single employee and counsel at the defense firm has signed Exhibit A as well.
“Further, Ford seems to imply in its motion, (Defendant’s Motion, at p.,) that this modification seeks to require that every attorney working at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm must also execute the Exhibit A form.” Defendant’s request does not explain why the existing form order does not protect it in this respect or why this is not burdensome. The request is DENIED. Furthermore, there is no evidence that every single employee and counsel at the defense firm has signed Exhibit A as well.
“Ford also seeks to prevent disclosure to mock jury participants arguing that Ford would have “no ability to confirm the identify of such persons or to track or trace their access if Ford’s documents were to become public because of disclosure in this case.” (Defendant’s Motion, at p. 6.) But the LASC model protective order requires that mock jury participants sign the Exhibit A attachment, which requires them to provide their address and telephone number.” Defendant’s request does not explain why the existing form order does not protect it in this respect or why this is not burdensome. The request is DENIED. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it would apply to their own mock jury participants as well.
“Ford seeks to add a paragraph indicating that “such documents may not be posted on any website or internet accessible document repository that is accessible to anyone other than the persons noted in paragraph 7 above” and that one “shall not under any circumstance sell, offer for sale, advertise or publicize either the Confidential Materials or the information contained thereinor the fact that such persons have obtained the Confidential Materials.” (Proposed protective order ¶ 8.) Again, there is no good reason to add these changes because the LASC model protective order already provides that “Confidential Materials shall be used by the persons receiving them only for the purposes of preparing for, conducting, participating in the conduct of, and/or prosecuting and/or defending the Proceeding, and not for any business or other purpose whatsoever.” (Proposed protective order ¶ 8, emphasis added.) Ford articulates no good reason why this provision is not sufficient. Therefore, this modification is unwarranted.” The court is considering granting this request. The reluctance to sign this causes the court concern that there may be an assertion that the model protective order does not prevent this conduct. The court will hear argument.
Finally, Ford seeks to modify paragraph 21. The LASC model protective order provides that “counsel for each party may maintain in its files, in continuing compliance with the terms of this Stipulation and Protective Order, all work product, and one copy of each pleading filed with the Court.” (Proposed protective order ¶ 21.) Without any explanation as to why the change is necessary, Ford’s proposed protective order does not allow for this. But Plaintiff’s counsel should be entitled to a complete copy of the case file. Because these documents would still be subject to the protective order, Ford cannot articulate any benefit that it obtains through this modification. Instead, Plaintiff would be—once again—unduly burdened by the modification with no articulated benefit to Ford. Defendant’s request does not explain why the existing form order does not protect it in this respect or why this is not burdensome. If there is concern that the documents will be used for another case, why can’t the order preclude that? The request is DENIED.