ADRIANA RUBALCABA; Plaintiff, vs. ARTHUR GALLAGHER & cO., et al.; Defendants.
Case No.: 19STCV15273
Hearing Date: June 29, 2020
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
plaintiff adriana rubalcaba’s Motion for Protective Order regarding deposition subpoenas for production of business records
The Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED according to the terms of the compromise offered by Rubalcaba. The protective order must conform to the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Highly-Confidential Protective Order form, with the exceptions that Defendants’ counsel and Gallagher’s in-house counsel may receive the subpoenaed records, but Glickman may not read, receive, or otherwise review the subpoenaed records at issue relating to Rubalcaba’s medical and/or psychiatric/psychological records, which are to be designated as “highly confidential.” The parties are to submit an executed protective order by July 1, 2020 for the Court’s review and approval.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an employment discrimination case.
Hearing Date
June 29, 2020
Type
Negligent Breach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
ADRIANA RUBALCABA; Plaintiff, vs. ARTHUR GALLAGHER & cO., et al.; Defendants.
Case No.: 19STCV15273
Hearing Date: June 29, 2020
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
plaintiff adriana rubalcaba’s Motion for Protective Order regarding deposition subpoenas for production of business records
The Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED according to the terms of the compromise offered by Rubalcaba. The protective order must conform to the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Highly-Confidential Protective Order form, with the exceptions that Defendants’ counsel and Gallagher’s in-house counsel may receive the subpoenaed records, but Glickman may not read, receive, or otherwise review the subpoenaed records at issue relating to Rubalcaba’s medical and/or psychiatric/psychological records, which are to be designated as “highly confidential.” The parties are to submit an executed protective order by July 1, 2020 for the Court’s review and approval.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an employment discrimination case.