Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV27209, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27209    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Theresa Chang dba Treasure Connection; Forty-Seventh & Fifth, Inc.; Paul King Por Wong and Leona Wai Fong Lam Wong dba Lams Jade Center, Inc.; Ming Chang dba Bonita Pearl, Inc.; Shahram Lavian and Sioun Lavian dba S&N Diamond; Sarkis Kegeyan dba Luvell, Inc.; Fariborz Frank Petri dba Petri Gems, Inc.; Amy Kit Tsing Leung dba Hawaiian Design Jewelry Company; Shung Man Simon Lam and Woon Mai Lam Quek dba El Dorado Jewelry, Inc.; Victor Wu and Anita Wu dba Pan Lovely Jewelry Company; Birol Arat dba Arat Jewelry; Tony Lee dba Lees International Jewelry, Inc.; Tan Lay Eng and Lee Cheng Tek dba Supreme Collection Corporation; and Rebecca Yum dba Denver Trading Company Kimmimoto (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Gloria Corrales and others.

On February 9, 2024, Defendant Corrales filed a motion for protective order governing the confidentiality of discovery.

According to Defendant, “Plaintiffs’ counsel has already agreed to a protective order to obtain corporate policies, procedures and guidelines, and confidential business records from Ms. Corrales’ employer Brinks Global Services USA, Inc. (or ‘Brinks’) in a parallel action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (‘SDNY Action’).”  (Motion at p. 2.)  Defendant therefore seeks to make the SDNY protective order the governing protective order in this action.

Defendant broadly argues that the information sought in discovery constitutes confidential information.  (Motion at pp. 7-9.)  However, there is no factual showing that Defendant has an interest in protecting any confidential discovery requested of her.  Instead, she contends that “Brinks could never recover its loss from a disclosure of the requested information to a competitor, criminals, or the public at large.  Disclosure of Brinks’ policies information will cause irreparable harm to Brinks, its employees, and its customers.”  (Id. at p. 9.)  This action as to Brinks is stayed in favor of litigation in New York.  Brinks is not actively litigating the case in this Court.

Defendant also argues that she will be prejudiced without a protective order because “California courts do not permit one party to block relevant discovery while it simultaneously seeks affirmatively to rely on that evidence at trial,” and Plaintiffs already agreed to the SDNY protective order.  (Motion at pp. 9-10.)  There is again no showing that Defendant is being blocked from obtaining any necessary discovery here.

The proposed order provides that the protective order entered in the SDNY Action “is now the order of this Court in this action.”  As Plaintiffs note, the express language of the SDNY protective order governs only discovery in New York.  By adopting that order verbatim, it would not add any protection to discovery in this case in California.  In that respect, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs:  “Based on the language of Corrales’ Proposed Order, she is requesting only that this Court make the NY Protective Order an Order of this Court.  That would add nothing to the NY Protective Order.  That Order, even extended to this case, would still cover only discovery material produced in the NY action, not anything produced or procured in discovery in this case.  Corrales’ Proposed Order would not change the provisions in the NY Protective Order precluding use of material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential in other litigation.”  (Opposition at p. 6.)

Moreover, the SDNY protective order expressly exempts this action:  “Recipients of Confidential or Highly Confidential Discovery Material under this Order may use such material solely for the prosecution and defense of this action and any appeals thereto, and not for any business, commercial, or competitive purpose or in any other litigation proceeding, except that any party in Chang, et al. v. Brinks Global Services, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV27209 may use such material in that action subject to the terms of this Order.  Nothing contained in this Order, however, will affect or restrict the rights of any Party with respect to its own documents or information produced in this action.”  (Motion, Ex. 1 at p. 8, ¶ 16.)

The motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice to a stipulation or motion to enter a different protective order, such as the model Los Angeles Superior Court Los Angeles Superior Court Stipulated Confidentiality Order Form.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 12th day of March 2024