Martinez v. Ford Motor Company
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Case No.: 24CV1763-AGS (BLM)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH 13 v. MODIFICATIONS
14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation; [ECF NO. 10] DOES 1 through 10;, 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 On December 6, 2024, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for Stipulated Protective Order.” 19 Mot., ECF No. 10. The parties agree on all terms of the Protective Order with the exception of 20 paragraph 8 which governs disclosure of the confidential information to independent experts. 21 Id. at 6. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits courts to enter orders to protect the disclosure 24 of material produced in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c) specifies that a party 25 must show good cause for issuance of a protective order. Id. District courts maintain “broad 26 latitude to grant protective orders to prevent disclosure of materials for many types of 27 information[.]” Nalco Company LLC v. Carota, 2022 WL 17219976, at *6 (quoting Philips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The Supreme Court 1 has interpreted this language as conferring ‘broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a 2 protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.’” In re Outlaw 3 Laboratories, LP Litigation, 2021 WL 1102421, at *4 (quoting Philips, 307 F.3d at 1211). 4 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – INDEPENDENT EXPERT 5 Defendant proposes the language for paragraph 8 contained in the Southern District of 6 California’s model protective order1 which is as follows: 7 Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY" must be viewed only by counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, and by 8 independent experts under the conditions set forth in this Paragraph. The right of 9 any independent expert to receive any confidential information will be subject to 10 the advance approval of such expert by the producing party or by permission of the Court. The party seeking approval of an independent expert must provide the 11 producing party with the name and curriculum vitae of the proposed independent 12 expert, and an executed copy of the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, in advance 13 of providing any confidential information of the producing party to the expert. Any objection by the producing party to an independent expert receiving confidential 14 information must be made in writing within fourteen (14) days following receipt of 15 the identification of the proposed expert. Confidential information may be 16 disclosed to an independent expert if the fourteen (14) day period has passed and no objection has been made. The approval of independent experts must not be 17 unreasonably withheld. 18 In support of the use of the Court’s model order language, Defendant contends that this 19 language “ensures any independent expert will not disclose in any manner any information or 20 item that is subject to the Order to any person or entity, except in strict compliance with the 21 provisions of the Order.” Mot. at 5. In addition, Defendants contend that without this language, 22 “Plaintiff’s independent experts may use/disclose protected information without any 23 consequence in this matter as well as others against Ford.” Id. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26
27 1 Plaintiff seeks to eliminate most of the language in this paragraph and proposes to limit 2 paragraph 8 to the following language: “Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR 3 COUNSEL ONLY" must be viewed only by counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving 4 party, and by independent experts.” Id. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s proposed language 5 contending that requiring Defendants’ permission to share technical information they deem 6 confidential to their experts “creates unnecessary and unreasonable hurdles to otherwise 7 ordinary Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act discovery that is necessarily going to occur.” Id. 8 at 2. 9 The Court notes that the purpose of the protective order is to protect confidential 10 information and prevent the dissemination of such information to unauthorized parties. The 11 Court agrees that Defendant’s proposed language is necessary to avoid unauthorized 12 dissemination of confidential information. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any support or 13 explanation as to how the Defendant’s proposed language would create “unreasonable hurdles” 14 with regard to potential discovery in this action. 15 The Court adopts the language proposed by Defendant to govern the disclosure of such 16 information. Accordingly, for good cause, the parties’ joint motion for a protective order is 17 GRANTED with the following modification: 18 Paragraph 8: Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY" must be viewed only by counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, 19 and by independent experts under the conditions set forth in this Paragraph. The 20 right of any independent expert to receive any confidential information will be 21 subject to the advance approval of such expert by the producing party or by permission of the Court. The party seeking approval of an independent expert 22 must provide the producing party with the name and curriculum vitae of the 23 proposed independent expert, and an executed copy of the form attached hereto 24 as Exhibit A, in advance of providing any confidential information of the producing party to the expert. Any objection by the producing party to an independent expert 25 receiving confidential information must be made in writing within fourteen (14) 26 days following receipt of the identification of the proposed expert. Confidential 27 information may be disclosed to an independent expert if the fourteen (14) day period has passed and no objection has been made. The approval of independent 1 experts must not be unreasonably withheld. 2 Conclusion 3 For good cause, the parties’ motion for a protective order is GRANTED as modified by 4 || this Order. > IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: 12/13/2024 Darbar Haye 8 Hon. Barbara L. Major 9 United States Maaistrate Judae 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Martinez v. Ford Motor Company (Martinez v. Ford Motor Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.