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

2,188 chars

65
the date agreed upon by the parties for the court-ordered deposition and the deponent's
production of documents, AHMSI applied for an order shortening time for notice of a
motion for a protective order. It then promptly filed its motion. Appellants have not
shown that the court abused its discretion by considering the motion on its merits.
The propriety of the protective order is a different issue. "The state has two
substantial interests in regulating pretrial discovery. The first is to facilitate the search
for truth and promote justice. The second is to protect the legitimate privacy interests of
the litigants and third parties. [Citation.] 'The interest in truth and justice is promoted by
allowing liberal discovery of information in the possession of the opposing party.
[Citation.] The interest in privacy is promoted by restricting the procurement or
dissemination of information from the opposing party upon a showing of "good cause."
[Citations.]' [Citation.] The trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the
competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery. [Citation.]" (Stadish v.
Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) A trial court must balance the various
interests in deciding "whether dissemination of the documents should be restricted." (Id.
at p. 1146.) Further, even where a motion for a protective order is denied in whole or
part, the trial court may still impose "terms and conditions that are just." (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (g); see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (g) [same].)
"Parties to civil litigation, recognizing the broad policies favoring discovery, often
choose to avoid costly and time-consuming motion practice by entering into stipulations
for protective orders that permit production but limit disclosure and use of discovered
information deemed by the producing party to contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
private information. They thereby defer or obviate the need for specific court
determination as to the propriety of designating materials confidential unless and until
that designation is challenged. [Citations.]" (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007)

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text