ABDALLAH LAMANE VS. LYFT, INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23607933 - October 29, 2025 Hearing date: October 29, 2025 Case number: CGC23607933 Case title: ABDALLAH LAMANE VS. LYFT, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23607933 | Case Title: | | ABDALLAH LAMANE VS. LYFT, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-29 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Protective Order Regarding Deposition Of Defendant Lyft, Inc.'S Persons Most Qualified And Request For Production Of Writings And/Or Other Tangible Things; Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff'S Counsel Of Record In The Amount Of $6,560.00 | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for October 29, 2025, line 2.

DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.'S Motion For Protective Order Regarding Deposition Of Defendant Lyft, Inc.'s Persons Most Qualified And Request For Production Of Writings And/Or Other Tangible Things; Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff'S Counsel Of Record In The Amount Of $6,560.00.

Defendant Lyft, Inc.'s motion for entry of a protective order to govern its production of and testimony about confidential matter is granted. The court will enter the protective order attached as Exhibit 1 to the Park Declaration.

The court finds good cause: the Sniegowski Declaration establishes that at least some material plaintiff Abdallah Lamane seeks in discovery constitutes Lyft's trade secrets. Lamane's contrary assertion is not supported, and the court further concludes that Lamane acted unreasonably in not meeting and conferring about an acceptable protective order.

The court grants Lyft's request for sanctions in part. "The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., section 2019.030, subd. (c).) The court finds that Lamane's opposition to a protective order lacks substantial justification. The court reduces the sanctions to some extent; at least some time in meet and confer efforts about a protective order is to be expected and therefore the court does not award Lyft its full request. The court orders Lamane to pay $4000 to Lyft within 30 days of entry of this order.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |