Mount VS 3M Company

RG21100427: Mount VS 3M Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Re: Confidential Documents; filed by HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. (Defendant) CRS# A-21100427-021 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 06/09/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Protective Order filed by HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. on 06/01/2026 is Granted in Part.

Defendant Honda Motor Company, Ltd.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiffs allege that their decedents Gerald Mount (“Mr. Mount”) and Germaine Helena Mount (“Mrs. Mount”) where exposed to respirable asbestos from Mr. Mount’s work rebuilding old Honda CT 90 motorcycles, which incorporated asbestos-containing brake friction parts or linings, clutch disc facings and gaskets when CT 90 motorcycles were manufactured new from approximately 1966 to 1979, but that OEM replacement parts for CT 90 motorcycles continued to incorporate asbestos into the late 1980s or early 1990s, when Defendant fully removed asbestos from all parts of its products.

The present dispute regards whether documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ CCP § 2031.010 et seq. Document Requests (“RFPD”) in Defendant’s possession, custody or control are subject to trade secret or proprietary information protections, although none of the responsive documents is apparently dated later than 1993, and none of the relevant motorcycle parts has incorporated asbestos since the early 1990s.

Both parties rely heavily on Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443. Whyte, 101 Cal.App.4th at 1454 states in relevant part:

“The test for trade secrets is whether the matter sought to be protected is information (1) which is valuable because it is unknown to others and (2) which the owner has attempted to keep secret.”

(See also Amgen Inc. v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 716, 734, also stating this point of law.)

Defendant on its second Motion for Protective Order now presents the declaration of Ken Oiwa to support Defendant’s assertions that the requested documents contain propriety information and constitute trade-secrets. He declares that he is currently Defendant’s “Manager, Litigation and Dispute Management Department of the Legal Division II” and that he has been employed by Defendant since 2002. (Oiwa Dec. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs in Opposition are correct, however, that Mr. Oiwa’s declaration is highly conclusory and the declarant has no personal knowledge of Defendant’s documents generated prior to 2002, or any efforts Defendant took to keep these documents confidential prior to 2002. (See rulings on Plaintiff’s Opp.

Objections below.) Further, while Mr. Oiwa is likely qualified to authenticate Defendant’s documents as its business records pursuant to Estate of O’Connor (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 159, 17, none of Defendant’s RG21100427: Mount VS 3M Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Re: Confidential Documents; filed by HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. (Defendant) CRS# A-21100427-021 in Department 18 relevant business records are attached to the Oiwa Declaration.

Defendant bears the burden to show that its records are proprietary or trade secrets. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318; Amgen, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at 733.) Once Defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to show that the documents are no longer subject to proprietary or trade secret protections. (Whyte, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at 1451-1452.)

Defendant asserts through the Oiwa Declaration that it has sought to keep information in the responsive documents confidential by entering into agreements with its parts suppliers that bar dissemination of the trade secret information. But, as stated above, no such agreements from the relevant time period are attached to the Oiwa Declaration. Plaintiffs persuasively cite to Whyte, supra, at pp. 1454-1455 for the proposition that without any secrecy agreements in the record, the Court should assume for purposes of this motion only that information provided to parts suppliers constitutes disclosure of the trade secrets.

Moreover, Plaintiffs point out that Defendant’s operative verified Second Amended RFPD Responses state unequivocally under penalty of perjury that Defendant was “not responsible for the manufacturing of any motorcycle brake linings, gaskets, or clutch disc facings and was not involved in the decision by its third-party suppliers to incorporate chrysotile into the friction material of those products.” (See e.g., Defendant’s Response to RFPD No. 16 at Exh. C to Thai Dec.) Defendant is bound to this verified admission.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet its burden to show that the two D3Y documents, R&D evaluations of alternative materials to develop nonasbestos containing brake friction parts, constitute trade secrets or proprietary information. Based on the admissions Defendant made above in its Second Amended RFPD Responses, Defendant could only have conducted this research and development to share with its parts suppliers, who would actually produce any non-asbestos brake friction parts. Defendant has presented no secrecy agreements where either Defendant or its brake friction parts supplier(s) agreed to keep the R&D evaluations confidential. Thus, any confidentiality must be deemed waived by disclosure. (Whyte, supra, at pp. 1454-1455.)

Similarly, any of Defendant’s design drawings or specifications exclusively regarding asbestoscontaining brake friction parts, clutch disc facings or gaskets have been waived by disclosure to its parts suppliers who manufactured these parts. Further, Defendant has presented no evidence that any competitor is still manufacturing asbestos-containing brake friction parts, clutch disc facings or gaskets such that they might improperly benefit from disclosure of Defendant’s design drawings or specifications regarding these specific parts.

However, with respect to motorcycle parts designed and manufactured solely by Defendant, which might include CT 90 motorcycle brake assemblies, clutch assemblies or parts manufactured by Defendant upon which gaskets were emplaced, the Court finds Defendant’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21100427: Mount VS 3M Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Re: Confidential Documents; filed by HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. (Defendant) CRS# A-21100427-021 in Department 18 evidence sufficient to establish that this information constitutes trade secrets and the Court cannot reasonably infer from the present record that these trade secrets were disclosed to anyone. Plaintiffs in Opposition have not presented any evidence that trade secret protection no longer applies to these parts.

The Court does find some merit to Plaintiffs’ argument that if a present competitor wished to copy any CT 90 parts, it could likely buy an old CT 90 and reverse engineer the parts. Defendant has presented no evidence that any of these parts are still subject to copyright protection after more than 45 years since the parts were originally designed and manufactured. However, it is at least possible that the design drawings and specifications contain information beyond what could be discovered by taking apart an old CT 90 and examining it carefully.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order with respect to the D3Y documents and any documents solely regarding parts manufactured by third party suppliers, but the Court GRANTS the Motion for Protective Order with respect to design drawings or specifications in whole or in part concerning parts designed and manufactured by Defendant.

To the extent that Plaintiffs timely contest the partial grant of this Motion, the Court will be inclined to conduct an in camera review of the relevant documents, as Defendant has proffered. However, Defendant will be required to provide English translations of those documents, as the Court will not be able to determine whether documents written in Japanese do or do not contain trade secrets. The Court doubts that drawings alone would contain information that could not be obtained by disassembling a CT 90 motorcycle.

The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s Opposition Objections Nos. 2-12 to the Oiwa Declaration with respect to statements regarding Defendant’s actions or documents prior to 2002. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s Objections regarding the contents of any documents created or contracts entered into prior to 2002, where none of Defendant’s business records are in the record.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21100427: Mount VS 3M Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Re: Confidential Documents; filed by HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. (Defendant) CRS# A-21100427-021 in Department 18