Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,681 chars

18
       In their argument, appellants direct us to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.060,
subdivision (a), which concerns discovery demands for "inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information . . . ."
The discovery provisions regarding production of documents by a deponent generally
parallel this section.
19
       "A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the
motion." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
                                             64
organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue
burden and expense." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b); cf. Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.060, subd. (b).)
       Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), provides a
nonexclusive list of permissible directions that may be included in a protective order.
(Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (b).) A protective order may include the
direction that "a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
information not be disclosed or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a
specified way." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b)(13), cf. Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.060, subd. (b)(5).)
       "[T]he issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent
discretionary. (See Coalition Against Police Abuse v. Superior Court (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 888, 904 . . . .)" (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court
(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.) Ruling on motions for protective orders will not be
disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. (See Moskowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137
Cal.App.3d 313, 317.)
       First, as to the timeliness of the motion for a protective order, the promptness of
the request turns on the facts. Appellants' motion for a protective order was not untimely
as a matter of law because it was made after the order compelling further deposition and
production, especially since it was contesting the dissemination of the documents, not
their production. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a); cf. Stadish v. Superior
Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1144 ["upon a proper showing a party may—even
after it has waived its right to object to the production of documents, and has produced
most of the documents requested—seek a protective order restricting dissemination of the
documents" under former Code Civil Procedure, section 2031, subdivision (e)].) Here,
within a week of learning that appellants would not agree to a protective order and before

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text