Motion-Secondary: *MF* Frias -v- Himnel USA Incorporated et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Douglas M. Wade, SBN 183107                                                                 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Aut< >)
               Dusty M. Knapp, SBN 349307                                                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC >RNIA
               CALIFORNIA BUSINESS LAWYER & CORPORATE                                                   LAwwlfingf      SAN BERNARDIN o
               500 N. State College B1Vd., Suite 1100
                                                                                                               m
                                                                                                             1/ 024 2-14 PM


               Orange, California 92868
               Telephone: (800) 484-4610
               Fax: (714) 400-9033
               Email: d0ug@ca-businesslawyer.com
OOQONUI-RUJN




                        dknapp@ca-businesslawyer.com

               Attorneys      for:   Defendant Himnel     USA Incorporated
                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                         FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
KO

                    YESENIA ROBLES,
                                                                                             Case N0. CIVSB2314929

  11                                       Plaintiff,                                        UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
  12                                                                                         Assigned for all purposes t0 the
                                           VS-
                                                                                             Hon. Michael A. Sachs
  13

  14                HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a                                               Dem 528      -
                                                                                                              SBJC
                    California Corporation, HIMNEL USA
                                                                        vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv




  15                INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S                                              DEFENDANT HIMNEL USA
                    MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California                                          INCORPORATED’S REPLY TO
  16                Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive,                                   PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
                                                                                             DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
  17
                                                                                             PROTECTIVE ORDER
                                           Defendants.
  18
                                                                                             Action Filed: July      5,   2023
  19                                                                                         Trial Date:       Not Yet Assigned

20

21             I.     INTRODUCTION
22                      The need      for protective order is   open and apparent. The                           issue before the Court      is


23             whether     Plaintiff is     entitled to confidential                         and proprietary information Without

24             restriction,   simply because she wants the information as such.

25                      Plaintiff’s    Requests for Production, Set One, and                                     Form      Interrogatories    —

26             Employment Law,           Set   One seek   the   names and addresses                             for every individual         on

27             Defendant Himnel         USA Incorporated dba St. Mary’s Montessori School’s (”Defendant”
28             or ”Defendant         Himnel USA”) commercial email                             lists,   the entire contents of personnel

                                                                    1
                          REPLY TO PLTF.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
                     DEF.’S
                    HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED ADV. YESENIA ROBLES; CASE NO. CIV832314929
               files     0f ”all supervisors”               employed by Defendant, Defendant’s private                       financial

               information, and security surveillance Video footage of                       St.   Mary’s Montessori School.

                          Defendant Himnel            USA objected t0 Plaintiff’s requests and provided a proposed
               stipulated protective order that                 would have provided           Plaintiff       with the information

OOQONUI-RUJN
               sought for limited use in litigation. See Knapp Decl.                    filed in   support of the instant Motion

               (hereinafter ”See         Knapp      Decl.”) at €122, 8:27 t0 9:2.

                          Plaintiff rejected the            proposed stipulated protective order. See Knapp Decl.                    at


               €123, 923-5.

KO                        Plaintiff    then insisted on production, noting that              we must produce her requested
               information because               we had      not yet   moved      for a protective order, necessitating this

  11           motion timely           filed   0n October      18, 2023.

  12                      Plaintiff,    aware 0f Defendant Himnel USA Motion for Protective Order, then filed

  13           (a)   a   Motion   t0   Compel Further Responses              to   Form Interrogatories — Employment Law,
  14           Set One,     and   (b)    Motion     to   Compel Production         0f   Documents, Set One 0n November               3,


  15           2023, arguing that we             had to comply as no Protective Order was in place.                 Plaintiff further

  16           filed identical     discovery motions in both related cases.

  17                      Based upon           Plaintiff’s   conduct, judicial intervention must resolve this dispute

  18           over materials that reasonably must be subject t0 Protective Order                                    if   provided   t0

  19           Plaintiff.


20             II.       PLAINTIFF        IS    NOT ENTITLED TO PRIVATE CONTACT INFORMATION OF
21                       THIRD PARTIES ABSENT A PROTECTIVE ORDER
22                        Plaintiff    demands       the private contact information 0f             all    individuals in Defendant

23             Himnel USA’s email                  lists.    This includes the contact information                  all   Defendant’s

24             employees, parents, and students enrolled in St. Mary’s Montessori School. Third parties

25             — parents, guardians, and students 0f                   St.   Mary’s Montessori School — have a right                 t0

26             privacy, contrary t0 Plaintiff’s assertions.

27                        In Opposition, Plaintiff insists that Defendant                   Himnel          USA   has provided ”no

28             facts” to    support the ”conclusory argument” that contact                         lists   are sensitive commercial

                                                                             2
                     DEF.’SREPLY TO PLTF.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
                     HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED ADV. YESENIA ROBLES; CASE NO. CIV832314929