2010-00085696-CU-PA

Edward Quijada vs. Ford Motor Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Determination of Documents

Filed By: Davies, Donahue

Defendant TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc.’s motion for determination of documents
as subject to the protective order’s non-sharing provision is granted.

Pursuant to the protective order in this action, TRW has the ability to produce
documents as protected such that they can only be used in accordance with the terms
of the protective order. (Skillern Decl. Exh. 3.) If a party disagrees with the
designation, and the parties cannot reach an agreement, the party designating the
document as protected must file a motion to establish that the document contains
protected confidential information such that the non-sharing protections of the
protective order apply. If such a showing is not made, then the documents are subject
to the sharing provisions of the order which allow a broader range of individuals to
access the documents. Here, Plaintiffs’ challenged TRW’s protected designation regarding a number of
documents concerning TRW’s marketing process’, product development timelines,
identification of subcomponents, suppliers and raw material requirements, quality
control methods, methods to identify and address product development issues,
performance analysis and testing methods, and manufacturing process and
procedures.

Plaintiffs’ opposition extensively argues that TRW has the burden to establish good
cause to demonstrate that the documents meet the criteria for non-sharing both under
the parties protective order and CCP § 2031.060(b)(5) which provides that the Court
may enter an order “[t]hat a trade secret or other confidential research, development,
or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons
or only in a specified way.” (Oppo. 2:8-3:3.) TRW does not dispute that it has this
burden, and has brought the instant motion pursuant to the procedure set forth in the
protective order requiring it to demonstrate that the documents designated as
protected contain “trade secret[s], confidential technical information or other
commercially sensitive information, the dissemination of which would damage the
producing party’s competitive position.” (Skillern Decl., Exh. 3, ¶ 3.)

While Plaintiffs also argue that TRW failed to meet its burden, the Court disagrees.
The Court has reviewed the affidavit of Steven St. Germain, TRW’s senior engineering
supervisor submitted in connection with the motion and finds that it sufficiently
establishes that the documents TRW designated as protected meet the standard set
forth in the parties’ protective order. That is, the documents contain “trade secret[s],
confidential technical information or other commercially sensitive information, the
dissemination of which would damage the producing party’s competitive
position.” (Skillern Decl., Exh. 3, ¶ 3.) Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition,
Mr. St. Germain goes through the all of the documents at issue and explains to this
Court’s satisfaction how they meet the requisite criteria. (St. Germain Affidavit ¶¶ 11-
19.) Mr. St. Germain sufficiently describes the nature of the documents and why
dissemination of the documents would damage TRW’s competitive position. (Id.)

Plaintiffs present no evidence of their own to counter this factual showing, instead
simply arguing that the sharing provisions in the protective order already sufficiently
protect against free dissemination of the documents. While they cite a previous order
in this case for the proposition that Ford/TRW already placed certain other documents
in the public file, the attached order makes clear that they did not waive any claim to
confidentiality when they inadvertently filed certain documents in unredacted form.
(Ponce Decl. Exh. B.) Further, the desire of Plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter to
“prevent other similarly situated litigants from having to file a motion to compel against
TRW for the same documents and to promote efficiency in the trial process” does not
show that TRW did not meet its burden on the instant motion. Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a sufficient basis upon which to deny the motion.

As a result, the motion is granted. TRW’s non-sharing designation of the documents
produced to Plaintiffs which are the subject of this motion is confirmed.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or other notice is required.