MOTION TO: (1) COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE TO INSPECTION DEMAND; AND (2) ADOPT PROTECTIVE ORDER

Moving Party: Defendant Charles Jimison

Respondent: Plaintiff Partee Insurance Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, who was formerly employed by Plaintiff as an insurance broker, misappropriated Plaintiff’s client and proprietary information, and also earned secret commissions. Plaintiff commenced this action on 4/12/13. The First Amended Complaint, filed on June 10, 2013, asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract
2. Conversion
3. Wrongful Use of Thing or Knowledge Acquired in Employment
4. Uniform Trade Secrets Acts Violation
5. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
6. Unfair Business Practices
7. Breach of Oral Contract
8. Fraud

FSC is set for 9/29/14. Jury trial is set for 10/7/14.

Defendant Charles Jimison (“Defendant”) moves for the following orders: (1) to compel compliance with the Statement of Compliance to Set One Inspection Demand; and (2) to adopt the protective order lodged concurrently with this motion.

If the responding party agrees to comply with a CCP § 2031.010 demand but then fails to do so, compliance may be compelled on appropriate motion. (CCP § 2031.320.) If the responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance with its agreement to comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party’s remedy is to file a motion compelling compliance. (CCP § 2031.320.) There is no fixed time limit on this motion; and, no “attempt to resolve informally” need be shown. All that has to be shown is the responding party’s failure to comply as agreed. (CCP § 2031.320(a); see Standon Co., Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Kim) (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.)

For “good cause shown,” the court may make whatever order justice requires to protect against oppression, undue burden, etc. The orders may include protecting confidential information (trade secrets, etc.) by restricting the manner in which it is disclosed. (CCP § 2031.060(b).) A party seeking a protective order must show good cause for issuance of the order by a preponderance of evidence. (Stadish v. Sup.Ct. (Southern Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.)

Defendant submits evidence that Plaintiff agreed to produce the documents sought in the first set of requests for production of documents as long as a “protective order has been entered in the court’s records,” but that the parties have been unable to agree on the language of the protective order regarding the remedies for the violation of the order. (Motion, Mollis Decl. ¶¶ 3-11, Exhs. 1-5.) Plaintiff, in opposition, also represents the same. (Opposition, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Exhs. 1-4.)

The evidence demonstrates that the parties have an agreement to produce the documents once a protective order has been issued, but that they have been unable to come to an agreement regarding the remdies for the violation of the protective order. Thus, the motion to compel compliance is denied without prejudice.

As for the language of the protective order, specifically as to the remedies for a violation of the protective order, it appears that the language proposed by Defendant is adequate, i.e., “17. The Parties hereto, through their respective counsel, agree that if there is a violation of this protective order that all Remedies, Rights and Procedures, at Law or Equity, shall be available to carry out the intent and purpose of this Stipulation for Protective Order on behalf of the Party aggrieved.” (Reply, Mollis Decl., Exh. A.) Thus, the motion to adopt the proposed protective order is granted.