Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV32242, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV32242    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS CONTINUED  

The hearing is CONTINUED to allow Defendant/Cross-Complainant the opportunity to file a Reply. 

Background 

On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff Lydia Lim filed a Complaint against ADP Total Source Inc.; Pro-Com Products, Inc.; and Does 1 to 250. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts causes of action for: 

1)     Violation of California Family Rights Act;

2)     Discrimination (Associational) in Violation of FEHA;

3)     Gender Discrimination;

4)     Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination;

5)     Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 6.

6)     Breach of Written Contract;

7)     Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract; and

8)     Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 

On May 24, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Prom-Com Products Inc. filed an Amended Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and Roes 1 to 10 for: 

1)     Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

2)     Professional Negligence;

3)     Breach of Contract; and

4)     Violation of Penal Code Section 502. 

On February 01, 2022, Pro-Com moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel and for a protective order to prevent Plaintiff from using documents that were allegedly wrongfully obtained and retained by her during her work as in-house counsel for Pro-Com. The Court denied both motions. (Min. Ord. 02/28/22.) The Court also denied Pro-Com’s request to file documents under seal. (Id.) 

On August 25, 2022, Pro-Com filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Seal Attorney-Client Communications. The Application was denied because there was no evidence of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other statutory basis for granting relief under CRC 3.1202(c). (Min. 08/26/22.) 

On August 08, 2022, Pro-Com filed a noticed Motion for a Protective Order scheduled to be heard on August 30, 2022. Plaintiff filed Opposition papers on August 23, 2022. 

Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that Opposition papers were filed late and that the error was due to inadvertence or mistake. 

Although the Court has the discretion to consider late-filed papers, defense counsel attests that the late-filed Opposition has prejudiced his ability to file a Reply. defense Counsel attests that he was not served with the Opposition until August 24, 2022, and had no time to prepare a Reply because the Reply was already due on August 23, 2022. defense counsel requests a continuance to file a reply. 

Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to September 19, 2022, to allow defense counsel to file a Reply. No additional briefing shall be accepted. 

Defendant to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.