Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 08/31/2023 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion of Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. (“Amazon”) for protective order is ruled on as follows. Amazon’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted for purposes for which judicial notice is proper.

Between August 16, 2022 and October 26, 2022, Amazon provided verified responses to discovery propounded by Plaintiffs Ruby-Lynn Ragas Idmilao and Tylor Christopher West (“Plaintiffs”), which included representations that Amazon would produce certain documents only subject to the entry of a protective order. (Dembowski Decl., ¶¶ 6-8, Exhs. A-C.) On October 3, 2022, Amazon provided a draft protective order. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. D.) The parties met and conferred as to the terms of a protective order until at least April 17, 2023 (Id., Exh. F) but were unable to reach an agreement. Amazon now brings the instant motion for a protective order.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion on grounds it is untimely. Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.060 requires a party to promptly make a motion for protective order. However, motions for protective orders must be supported by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.020(a), 2031.060(a).) Here, Amazon attempted to initiate meet and confer efforts on October 3, 2022. (Dembowski Decl., ¶ 9.) Then, on March 23, 2023, in its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the Court encouraged the parties to meet and confer regarding a protective order. (Minute Order, 03/23/2023, p. 3.) The parties continued to meet and confer until April 17, 2023. (Dembowski Decl., Exh. F.) In light of the ongoing meet and confer efforts, the Court finds Amazon’s delay in bringing this motion does warrant denial on those grounds alone.

In the event the Court finds the motion is timely, Plaintiffs request the Court adopt certain changes to the proposed protective order. Plaintiffs do not dispute that some of the information to be produced by Amazon may be confidential but contend the protective order as drafted is overbroad and improperly shifts the burden to Plaintiffs to show that documents produced are not confidential, rather than requiring Amazon to affirmatively show good cause for marking documents as confidential.

First, Plaintiffs request that sections 5(b) and 5(c) be deleted from the proposed order because they permit the designation of all raw data and derivative information as confidential without regard to the particular nature of the raw data. Although Amazon represents that the production will include certain raw data that Amazon treats as highly confidential (Dembrowski Decl., ¶ 11b), Amazon failed to provide a declaration from any person at Amazon with personal knowledge of what data is confidential and what measures Amazon takes to preserve that confidentiality. At the same time, however, Plaintiffs concede (as they must) that the “raw data itself might constitute proprietary information under certain circumstances.” The Court agrees insofar as the mere fact that material is or is related to “raw data” should not in itself subject the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 08/31/2023 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

material to “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation. Rather, what is important is what the “raw data” relates to or is used for. Thus, the Court will grant the motion insofar as 5(b) and 5(c) shall each be modified to include at their conclusion, “where such raw data (or derivative therefrom) relates to or is used in connection with any of the other categories listed under paragraph 5.” Accordingly, the motion is granted in this regard.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that “Section 10(b) should require the designating party to support its designations with good cause.” Importantly, however section 10 relates to “Challenges to Designation as Confidential or Attorney’s Eyes Only.” The first sentence of Plaintiffs’ proposed language appears to create a requirement for the initial designation of material which is inapposite for this section. The Court will not require it. Furthermore, section 10(b) contemplates that the party that designated material as “Confidential” and/or “Attorney’s Eyes Only” which is in dispute must respond and that the parties will meet-and-confer in such regard.

Given that section 10(a) already recites that the burden of proving a basis for protection lies with the designating party, it is presumed that such meet-and-confer process will include, but not be limited to, discussions regarding specific bases for protection. The proposed protective order does not, as Plaintiff claims, shift the burden onto Plaintiff to prove that material is not subject to protection. And if the parties fail in their meet-and-confer efforts such that a motion unfortunately becomes necessary, again, the party claiming protection will be required to satisfy its burden before the Court.

The Court finds no need for Plaintiff’s modification to section 10(b).

Finally, Plaintiffs also request revisions to the timing provision in section 10(b). Under Amazon’s proposed order, a party challenging a claim of confidentiality must give written notice of the basis for the challenge. The party claiming confidentiality then has 30 days to attempt to resolve the dispute or to file a motion to confirm confidentiality. Plaintiff’s proposal provides only 14 days to attempt to resolve the dispute and to move for an order confirming confidentiality. The Court finds the 14-day period provided by Plaintiff may hinder meet-andconfer efforts and will result in a greater volume of future discovery motions. The Court will not require Plaintiffs’ proposed change.

Conclusion

The motion for a protective order is granted to the extent indicated and limited above.

The minute order is effective immediately.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, Amazon shall prepare a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature including the parties’ agreed upon edits and those required by the Court’s order. It shall circulate the proposed protective order to Plaintiffs for approval as to form.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 08/31/2023 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53