tion work.

Trial in this case has been continued several times. Relevant to this motion, on January 8, 2018, the Parties appeared before the Honorable Donald G. Umhofer (Ret.) on another law and motion matter. During the hearing, the Parties advised the Court they wished to continue the January 23 trial date to March 27, 2018. In resetting the new trial date, and per the Parties’ agreement, Judge Umhofer specified the discovery cut-off date (also January 8, 2018) would not be reset and discovery would not be re-opened, except to allow the Parties to conduct expert depositions.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order1.

Plaintiff’s motion is based on the testimony of its non-retained expert, Plaintiff employee Ramon Gonzales, and the documents Mr. Gonzales relies on in formulating his opinions2. Plaintiff argues these documents include Plaintiff’s confidential financial records. (Mtn., p. 4, ll. 22-26.) Plaintiff’s counsel provided a proposed stipulated protective order to Defendants’ counsel on January 5, 2018. (Mtn., Exs. B, C.) Defendants’ counsel did not immediately respond to the proposed protective order; thus, the January 8, 2018 discovery cut-off came and went. Plaintiff’s counsel continued to follow-up with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the proposed protective order. Plaintiff’s moving papers include his many emails with Defendants’ counsel. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff’s counsel advised opposing counsel that the documents at issue would not be produced unless Defendants entered into a protective order. As noted in the moving papers, although Defendants’ counsel “did not expressly state she would sign the Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order, it was implied from her emails that she would do so.” (Mtn., p. 6, ll. 23-24.) However, on February 7, 2018, Defendants’ counsel stated she would not sign the proposed protective order, a position reiterated in a February 14, 2018 email. (Mtn., Ex. I.) This motion followed.

In opposing Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants apparently do not dispute that the relevant documents are confidential, or that their production should be governed by a protective order. Defendants instead argue that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely inasmuch as it was filed on February 20, 2018, after the January 8, 2018 discovery cut-off. (Opp., p. 2, ll. 19-26.) The Court finds this argument
1 Plaintiff originally applied ex parte to have this motion heard. At the February 28 hearing, the Court noted that the subject of this motion is not an ex parte issue and ordered the Parties to submit briefing for this hearing. The Court also vacated the March 27, 2018 trial date. 2 The documents are responsive to Defendants’ deposition notice and request for production to Mr. Gonzales, specifically request numbers 9, 24, 25, 2, 27, and 28. (See Mtn., p. 5.)
unpersuasive because Plaintiff provided Defendants with a proposed protective order prior to the discovery cut-off, and repeatedly advised Defendants’ counsel that the documents would not be produced unless Defendants entered into the protective order.

Defendants further argue the documents should not be produced because they (the Defendants) have been requesting the documents for several months, but Plaintiff only recently agreed to produce them (subject to the proposed protective order) in conjunction with Mr. Gonzales’s deposition. (Opp., p. 3, ll. 12-18.) The record reflects that Defendants previously moved to compel production of similar documents. The Court, the Honorable Ginger E. Garrett presiding, denied Defendants’ motion, agreeing that “the material was confidential and privileged,” and finding that “all non-privileged documents had been produced.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 12-14.) It appears that, after Judge Garrett’s ruling, neither Party raised the possibility of a protective order until recently.

The briefing before the Court evidences that both Parties agree the documents are relevant to this lawsuit. Plaintiff is willing to produce the documents with a protective order in place, which aligns with the Court’s previous finding that the documents are of a financial nature and therefore privileged.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The protective order attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s motion will be signed at the April 3, 2018 hearing.