E-COM Solutions, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.

103 E-COM Solutions, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 2024-01443588 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – GRANTED Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) moves for entry of a Protective Order applicable to the production of materials pursuant to Plaintiff E-Com Solutions, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Requests for Production of Documents in this matter. (ROA 67.)

The unopposed Motion is GRANTED. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.060.)

In this instance, the parties basically agree a protective order is warranted but disagree about three changes Defendant has made to the LACSC Model Protective Order. (Wond Decl.¶9,10.)

Defendant produced the declaration of its employee Amanda Pannell who attested that the documents at issue contain Defendant’s confidential business information. (Pannell Decl. ¶8.)

Ford has met its burden on a protective order covering the specific documents. The requested changes are not so overbearing or prohibitive to Plaintiffs to deny the request. Plaintiff failed to file any opposition.

Defendant to give notice. 104 OFF CALENDAR 105 Huamani v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 2024-01432645 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – DENIED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “State Farm”) moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues in connection with Plaintiff Diego Huamani’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the third and fourth issues and DENIED as to the first and second issues.