This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2022 at 00:13:24 (UTC).

ALEX AI VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Case Summary

On 05/16/2017 ALEX AI filed a Property - Other Property lawsuit against HOME DEPOT USA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DANIEL M. CROWLEY, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and THERESA M. TRABER. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8381

  • Filing Date:

    05/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

THERESA M. TRABER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AI ALEX

Defendants

FIKRY NEVITTE

HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LARSEN SAMANTHA CHRISTINE

XU YING

Defendant Attorneys

FREELAND AMY ROSE

HUGHES TRACY L.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

10/18/2022: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

8/24/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Notice of Settlement

8/24/2022: Notice of Settlement

Order - Dismissal

8/22/2022: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY COUNSEL...)

8/22/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY COUNSEL...)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE #9 RE LIMITING DR. AMOS OPINIONS

8/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE #9 RE LIMITING DR. AMOS OPINIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY SANCTION...)

8/17/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY SANCTION...)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

8/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

8/18/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

Exhibit List

8/18/2022: Exhibit List

Witness List

8/18/2022: Witness List

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

8/18/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

8/18/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

8/18/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, JOHN SMITH

8/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, JOHN SMITH

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

8/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

8/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

8/18/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/18/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Alex Ai (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2022
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Alex Ai (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/23/2022
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Motion in Limine #9 Re Limiting Dr. Amos opinions); Filed by Alex Ai (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Request Entry of Default as to Defendant, Nevitte Fikry,) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28; Order to Show Cause Re: ( Why Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant Should not be Sanctioned $250.00 Their Failure to Complying with the Seventh Amended Standing Order Regarding the Final Status Conference Requirements) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2022
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Why Counsel...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
176 More Docket Entries
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketOPPOSITION TO EX PARTE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-06-13 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE DEPOSITION OF VICTORIA HAMPSON (AKA TORI HAMPSON); DECLARATION OF AMY R. FREELAND; [PROPOSEDI] ORDER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketMotion to Quash; Filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Defendant); Nevitte Fikry (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Alex Ai (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2011
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Advance Informal Discovery Conference)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8381    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Protective Order

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2017, Plaintiff Alex Ai (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Nevitte Fikry alleging premises liability for a metal pipe falling off a shelf and hitting Plaintiff on April 25, 2016.

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to allege additional facts.

On October 21, 2019, Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060, subdivision (a).

Trial is set for June 17, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court for an order limiting the disclosure of trade secrets and seeking sanctions of $2,600 for being forced to bring its motion for a protective order.

LEGAL STANDARD

A protective order may be granted on a noticed motion of a party propounded with requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc. ;; 2031.060, subd. (a). The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter outside of court. (Ibid.)

The burden is on the moving party to establish good cause exists for protection from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (See Code Civ. Proc. ;; 2031.060, subd. (b); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1393.)  

After, the party seeking discovery must make a “particularized showing that the information sought is relevant and necessary to the proof of, or defense against, a material element of one or more causes of action presented in the case, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit.  It is then up to the holder of the privilege to demonstrate any claimed disadvantages of a protective order.  Either party may propose or oppose less intrusive alternatives to disclosure of the trade secret, but the burden is upon the trade secret claimant to demonstrate that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure.”  (Bridgestone, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1393.)  

DISCUSSION

A trade secret is “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that . . . [d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use[] and . . . [i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”  (Civ. Code ; 3426.1, subd. (d).)

Moving Defendant argues it has trade secrets in the following five documents: (1) a 3-page asset protection reference guide, (2) a 3-page asset protection sign manual, (3) a 3-page document with department 26 plumbing safety standards, (4) a 1-page document with standards for merchandise on floor or sales level, and a (5) 2-page store readiness checklist.  (Motion, pp. 4:24-6:25.)  Bradley E. Nesmith, a Senior-Director-Internal Audit and Corporate Compliance for Moving Defendant, submits a declaration in support of the motion.  Mr. Nesmith’s declaration consists of an explanation of what Moving Defendant’s standard operating procedures are, the process of developing them, that disclosure would be detrimental, and the procedures that Moving Defendant uses to protect disclosure.  (Nesmith Decl., ¶¶ 3-16.)

The Court finds Mr. Nesmith’s declaration fails to show Moving Defendant has trade secrets in the five documents for which Moving Defendant seeks a protective order that would limit disclosure.  A glaring defect in this declaration is that it pertains to standard operating procedures, but makes no mention that any of the five documents for which Moving Defendant seeks protection constitute standard operating procedures within the meaning of Mr. Nesmith’s declaration.

Assuming these documents are standard operating procedures, Mr. Nesmith’s declaration fails to show that Moving Defendant derives independent economic value from them not being generally known to the public.  Mr. Nesmith conclusorily declares that Moving Defendant has been able to maintain its position in the industry by taking advantage of the experience and know-how of its associates and by investing resources in developing operating procedures, which are embodied in the standard operating procedures.  (Nesmith Decl., ¶ 9.)  Mr. Nesmith then declares that this advantage would be greatly diminished if the standard operating procedures were disclosed to competitors.  (Ibid.)  Mr. Nesmith makes no clear statement as to how disclosure of these five particular documents would disadvantage Moving Defendant.

Thus, the motion is DENIED, as is the request for sanctions.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Amy Rose Freeland

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HUGHES TRACY L.