Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 25STCV01928, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 25STCV01928, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01928 Hearing Date: May 29, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: May 29, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Naira Soria v. Thompson’s Auto and Truck Center, Inc.

CASE NO.: 25STCV01928

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Naira Soria

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a lemon law action filed on January 24, 2025. Plaintiff purchased a 2021 GMC Sierra 2500 which developed brake system defects.

Defendant General Motors LLC moves for a protective order regarding certain policy and procedure documents.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant General Motors LLC moves for a protective order regarding certain policy and procedure documents.

Legal Basis for Motion

Defendant purports to bring this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060, or, alternatively, under the Court’s inherent authority to control its own proceedings. Section 2031.060 authorizes protective orders pertaining to demands for inspection pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060(b).) Here, however, it is undisputed that the documents which Defendant seeks to protect are part of Defendant’s required disclosures as a manufacturer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 subdivision (h). As these materials are not currently subject to an inspection demand under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seq, Defendant’s citation to the Civil Discovery Act is misplaced. The Court will therefore consider the merits of Defendant’s request under its inherent authority only. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 128.)

Analysis

Defendant General Motors LLC moves for a protective order regarding the use and disclosure of (1) its written statement of policies and procedures to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement, and (2) its Warranty policies and procedure manuals. certain policy and procedure documents. Defendant argues that these documents are trade secrets and confidential, proprietary business information.

Trade secrets are generally privileged from disclosure. (Evid. Code § 1060.) However, to the extent that the documents at issue are privileged, that privilege is curtailed by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 subdivision (h), which requires disclosure of these documents by a defendant in a Song-Beverly action to the Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26(h).) Thus, the issue presented by this motion is not whether the documents should be disclosed, but whether they are privileged such that they should be subject to a protective order constraining their use and dissemination outside this litigation.

As the party asserting the privilege, Defendant bears the burden of establishing that these materials are privileged—i.e., that they are trade secrets. (Bridgestone/Ifrestone Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.) “Trade secrets” are defined by Civil Code section 3426.1 subdivision (d) as any information that:

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

(Civ. Code § 3426.1(d).) Here, Defendant has produced a Declaration from its “Customer Experience Manager – Business Resource Center” Kimberley Lukas, who describes the methods Defendant customarily employs to maintain the secrecy of the records which are sought (Declaration of Kimberley Lukas ISO Mot. ¶¶ 7-9), before asserting that this information is “commercially sensitive business information that is not made available to the general public, the disclosure of which would cause [Defendant] harm.” (Id. ¶ 10.) This declaration is not sufficient, as it does not demonstrate how Defendant’s policy and procedure documents derive any value from not being generally known to the public, nor do they explain what risks are posed by their disclosure. A bare assertion that the disclosure of these materials would be harmful without any explanation is not evidence that these materials constitute trade secrets. Nor does Defendant offer any reasoning for its conclusion that these materials should be subject to a protective order merely because Defendant does not customarily make these documents publicly available. Defendant also asserts that these documents contain personal identifying information but fails to explain how policy and procedure manuals would logically contain any such information.

Defendant has not justified its claim that these materials constitute trade secrets or confidential and proprietary business information. Defendant is not entitled to a protective order.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2025 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.

Website by Triangulus