This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/05/2020 at 19:53:48 (UTC).

ALEX AI VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Case Summary

On 05/16/2017 ALEX AI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HOME DEPOT USA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8381

  • Filing Date:

    05/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AI ALEX

Defendants and Respondents

FIKRY NEVITTE

DOES 1 TO 25

HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

XU YING

LARSEN SAMANTHA

LARSEN SAMANTHA CHRISTINE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

FREELAND AMY ROSE

HUGHES TRACY L.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Separate Statement

9/27/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/27/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF BRADLEY E. NESMITH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HAVE HOME DEPOT'S PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RETAIN "CONFIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION

10/21/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF BRADLEY E. NESMITH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HAVE HOME DEPOT'S PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RETAIN "CONFIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

11/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

11/13/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT HOME USA, INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HAVE HOME DEPOT'S PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RETAIN "CONFIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR

11/14/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT HOME USA, INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HAVE HOME DEPOT'S PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RETAIN "CONFIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

11/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE GAIL R. DAIDSON, CSR #12823

11/21/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE GAIL R. DAIDSON, CSR #12823

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

11/26/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

11/26/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

2/19/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

Opposition - to Motion to Strike

9/26/2018: Opposition - to Motion to Strike

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

8/28/2018: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Minute Order -

8/28/2018: Minute Order -

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE DEPOSITION OF VICTORIA HAMPSON

8/21/2018: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE DEPOSITION OF VICTORIA HAMPSON

Motion for Protective Order -

7/6/2018: Motion for Protective Order -

CoverSheet -

5/16/2017: CoverSheet -

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/24/2021
  • Hearing06/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • Hearing06/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • Docketat 10:33 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
94 More Docket Entries
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketEx-Parte Application; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketOpposition Document; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Alex Ai (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint

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

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658381    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.