DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV10049·la·Civil·Discovery / Protective Order
Hearing todayDENIED

Francisco Estrada v. Ford MOtor Company

Motion for Protective Order

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
513
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFrancisco Estrada
DefendantFord Motor Company

Ruling

service of Plaintiff's Requests for Production on counsel for Plaintiff] and P.P. 3-5.) ORDER The court GRANTS defendant General Motors, LLC's motion to compel responses to requests for production. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, the court orders plaintiff Joshua Rosenbaum (1) to serve on defendant General Motors, LLC written responses, without objections and which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, to defendant General Motors, LLC's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and (2) to produce to defendant General Motors, LLC all documents and things in plaintiff Joshua Rosenbaum's possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of service of this order.

The court orders defendant General Motors, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 2, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Francisco Estrada; Plaintiff, vs. Ford MOtor Company; Defendant. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: |

September 2, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Motion for Protective Order | MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Francisco Estrada Motion for Protective Order The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion. DISCUSSION Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Defendant") moves the court for a protective order restricting the use and disclosure of certain documents. The court denies the motion because Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for entry of a protective order. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2031.260.) Defendant has not demonstrated that its customer service, warranty, and vehicle repurchase policy and procedure manuals contain information that derive independent economic value from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (Civ. Code, Sec. 3426.1, subd. (d).) ORDER The court DENIES defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for protective order. The court orders plaintiff Francisco Estrada to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 2, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share