Case Number: BC670477 Hearing Date: February 14, 2019 Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

North Central District
Department B

estrella flores,

Plaintiff,

v.

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC670477

Hearing Date: February 14, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) motion to compel responses to request for production of documents

(2) motion for protective ordeR

BACKGROUND

Allegations

Plaintiff Estrella Flores (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on August 2, 2015, she was injured when trying to get onto Defendant/Operator’s (Doe 1) shuttle tram or bus while on Defendant’s property. She alleges that the Operator instructed Plaintiff to maneuver her motorized wheelchair onto the tram’s lift or ramp and that when she did so, the life/ramp was uneven or malfunctioned. She alleges that the lift/ramp caused her to tilt or rock forward while she was seat-belted into her wheelchair, causing pressure, pain, injury, and/or damages to her toes, ankles, coccyx ulcer, nerves, and nervous system. Plaintiff alleges that a woman instructed others not to touch Plaintiff for fear of liability when Plaintiff asked for help. Plaintiff believes this woman was an agent or employee of Defendants NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Universal Studios Hollywood, WP Universal Citywalk, LLC, Universal City Studios, LLC, Universal Studios Company, LLC, Universal Studios, LLC, Universal Studios Store, and Hollywood, LLC.

The complaint, filed August 1, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) res ipsa loquitor; (4) gross negligence; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of fitness.

Discovery Motions

On January 15, 2019, the Court held a Case Management Conference. At the CMC, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that there were 6 discovery motions filed with the Court (4 motions to compel initial responses filed May 22, 2018, and 2 motions to compel further filed June 25, 2018), and a motion for protective order filed June 25, 2018. The Court informed the parties that it would re-set the hearing on only the motion to compel documents (not “Further Discovery”) and the motion for protective order, in the hopes that this would provide some resolution and guidance. Thereafter, the Court will schedule the other motions or a discovery conference in hopes of resolving them..

DISCUSSION – MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RPD

Defendant WP Universal Citywalk, LLC (“WP”) moves to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to the request for production of documents, set one (“RPD”). Plaintiff opposes.

WP propounded the RPD on February 22, 2018 on Plaintiff. WP states that it provided extensions to Plaintiff, upon request, such that that responses were due by March 29, 2018. WP states that despite this extension and attempt to meet and confer, as of the filing date of the motion on May 22, 2018, Plaintiff has not provided initial responses to the RPD.

In opposition (filed July 3, 2018), Plaintiff states that she responded to all the outstanding discovery propounded by each Defendant, and that responses were provided without objection. As such the motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD is moot in light of the served responses.

WP requests sanctions for bringing the motion to compel. Plaintiff argues that no sanctions should be awarded because she provided all the discovery responses. However, neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel provide any reasons why she delayed in providing responses or did not request another extension, despite WP providing Plaintiff with a first extension. The sanctions sought by WP in the total amount of $456 ($165/hour x 2.4 hours, plus $60 filing fees) is modest and will be awarded, but suspended pending the Court’s review of other motions.

DISCUSSIOn – MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Legal Standard

When the production of documents has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. (CCP §2031.060(a).) This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The Court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP §2031.060(b).) This protective order may include an order that 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. (See CCP §2031.060(b)(5).)

Analysis

Defendant Universal Studios LLC (“Universal”) moves for a protective order to approve a confidentiality agreement. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief for this motion.

In its motion, Universal states that it requested Plaintiff to stipulate to a confidentiality agreement governing the documents and information exchanged in this matter, but that Plaintiff has not responded to such a request. Universal states that despite informal efforts to agree to a protective order with Plaintiff, it has been unsuccessful, necessitating this motion. Universal intends to use the proposed protective order from the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s website, which is a part of its sample forms.

Universal argues that good cause exists for a protective order because the discovery and documents sought by Plaintiff include information relating to insurance, drivers, shuttles, and incident reports. Universal contends that these internal documents and the information sought falls under the purview of commercially sensitive documents and that the confidentiality of these documents should be maintained. Namely, Universal argues that it is a global brand whose reliance on its shuttles is tantamount to its business operations, such that ordinary automobile-related documents are not being sought; rather, it argues that its information related to drivers, shuttles, etc. are not available to the public, could potentially harm Universal’s reputation, and also be misused or misappropriated by Universal’s competitors, such that it could lose its competitive advantage.

The Court finds that Universal has established good cause for the protective order in order to maintain the confidentiality of its commercially sensitive and trade secret information. Also, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, thus there appears to be no objection to the use of a protective order. In addition, Universal represented to Plaintiff in its discovery responses and to the Court that it would be amenable to responding to discovery and producing documents upon the mutual execution of a protective order.

The Court is not ruling on the specific protected nature of any document. To the extent that documents must be used in the litigation, the Court expects counsel to work with each other to agree on appropriate declassification procedures under the protective order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

WP’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD is moot as Plaintiff represented in her opposition brief that all responses were provided without objection. WP’s request for sanctions is granted, but suspended pending the outcome of other discovery motions.

Universal’s motion for protective order is granted.

Each moving party shall provide notice of the order respective to their motion.