Case Number: BC717026 Hearing Date: December 27, 2018 Dept: 7
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MOTION GRANTED
On August 9, 2018, Plaintiff Alida Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mesfin Fesasso (“Fesasso”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) for motor vehicle negligence relating to a May 13, 2017 automobile accident. Fesasso was driving when he attempted a left-hand turn into the path of Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven by her husband. Plaintiff contends Uber is vicariously liable for Fesasso’s alleged negligence.
On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff served written discovery requests on Uber. (Declaration of Tiffany Rouhi, ¶ 5.) Uber’s counsel advised Plaintiff’s counsel that it would not produce confidential documents unless the parties stipulated to a protective order. (Rouhi Decl., ¶ 6.) The parties met and conferred, but could not reach an agreement. (Rouhi Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8.) Uber moves for a protective order.
Where interrogatories are propounded, a demand for inspection or production is made, or request for admissions is made, the responding party may promptly move for a protective order and the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with Section 2016.040. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (a), 2031.060, subd. (a), 2033.080, subd. (a).)
The court, for good cause shown, may make an order that justice requires to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. A protective order may include, but is not limited to, an order that: (1) the set of requests or particular requests in the set need not be answered at all; (2) that the number of requests is unwarranted; (3) that the time specified to respond to the requests be extended; (4) that a trade secret or other confidential research not be admitted or be admitted only in a certain way; or (5) that some or all of the answers to requests be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (b), 2031.060, subd. (b), 2033.080, subd. (b).)
If the motion is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the responding party provide the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (c), 2031.060, subd. (c), 2033.080, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff’s request for documents seeks records relating to Fesasso’s location, trip details, and app status on the date of the incident. Uber argues this information constitutes trade secret, as it satisfies all the prongs of the test enumerating in In re Providian Credit Card Cases, because: (1) the information regarding the data, operation, and use of the Uber App is secret; (2) Uber derives economic value from the information; (3) Uber has made reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the information; and (4) the disclosure of the information would damage Uber. (Declaration of Andrew Magana, ¶¶ 12-14.)
Uber argues a protective order is necessary to protect trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information. Specifically, Uber argues information regarding the operation and use of the Uber App is a trade secret and confidentiality is essential for Uber’s continued success. (Magana Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7, 13-14, 16-18, 20.) Further, disclosure of documents and testimony regarding tip receipts, app status data, and incident reports concerning Fesasso would implicate confidentiality and privacy rights, as well as identify operating procedures that could be used by competitors. (Magana Decl., ¶ 19.) Uber states all newly hired employees are required to sign a Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement to guard trade secrets and information.
Uber argues the proposed protective order is narrowly tailored and modeled after the Court’s model protective order. It would apply to confidential technical, sales, marketing, policy, personal, financial, or other commercially competitive sensitive information contained in both documents and testimony given. The proposed protective order also provides a procedure for challenging designations.
Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition, but the Court exercises its discretion to consider it. Plaintiff contends Uber unnecessarily filed this Motion for protective order, as the parties were engaged in good faith negotiations regarding the issue of privileged materials. Plaintiff argues she does not intend to disseminate or publicize Uber’s internal policies, the inner workings of its App, or matters relating to its drivers. Plaintiff argues Uber exaggerates its need for protection from competitors.
However, the “issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.” (Raymond Handling Concepts Corporation v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588, 591.) The Court finds Uber has demonstrated good cause for the requested protective order. Uber does not seek to prevent disclosure of the requested discovery; rather, it seeks to limit those individuals who receive confidential materials to the parties, attorneys and their employees, experts, court reporters, and other designated persons, and seeks nondisclosure agreements. As Plaintiff states she does not intend to publicize said confidential information, there should be no issue in complying with the protective order.
Plaintiff requests that the Court clarify the definition of “privilege.” Uber has stated that the privileged material which it refers contains or is a trade secret (Motion, 8:1-8.) However, it does not appear Uber seeks to assert this privilege to prevent disclosure. Rather, Uber objects to this information being “disclosed outside this litigation.” (Motion, 8:26-28.) To the extent Uber does seek to assert privilege to prevent disclosure (on grounds of attorney work product or attorney-client privilege), Uber would be required to produce a privilege log in the regular course of discovery.
Accordingly, the Motion for protective order (Exh. N) is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.