XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
COUNTY OF XXX
XXX,
Plaintiff,
v.
XXX HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and XXX,
Defendants.
Case No.: XXX
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN,
HERBERT CONRAD AND TO THEIR ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD AND SPECIAL
NOTICE TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff XXX, at the venue indicated or at
such other venue as the court shall prescribe, will move this Court for a Protective Order, as
justice requires.
This Motion will be based on the grounds that there is good cause for the issuance of said
order in that the discovery propounded is overly burdensome and oppressive insofar as it is seeks
irrelevant information that dates back to 2015. The discovery propounded also lacks pertinent
information, which would prove Plaintiff’s innocence.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Further, the motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and the Memorandum set
forth below, and on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the
hearing of the motions.
Dated: ___________
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
XXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
A. BACKGROUND
The incidence giving rise to this action began when Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted
at the hospital’s facility. On January 25, 2020, Plaintiff went to visit her mother. As Plaintiff was
checking in at the ER at the hospital’s facility, Herbert stole Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby
and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
Consequently, the police officers arrived and took a police report of the incidence.
Interestingly, Herbert gave false information that Plaintiff was the one who punched his face.
Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged and a case was filed against her. During the pendency of the
said case, the Irvine Police Department refused to give Plaintiff a copy of the Police Report. It
was only when the case was dismissed when the Irvine Police Department gave the Plaintiff the
Report.
The said case was dismissed on May 2021. After the dismissal of the case, the Plaintiff
got the Report. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the detective, the
attorneys of the hospital, and the head of security personnel at the hospital looked at the hospital
camera footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020. The Plaintiff tried to subpoena the
hospital for the said footage. However, Plaintiff used the wrong Subpoena. Accordingly, the
hospital’s attorney filed a Motion to quash the said Subpoena on the ground that it violated
HIPPA laws. On or about December 2020, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Quash
the Subpoena. The Plaintiff therefore never got an opportunity to present pertinent evidence of
what really happened on the incident.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against Plaintiff.
Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the malicious
prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.
On or about September XXX, the Plaintiff conducted a Public Records request. After
the said request, the Plaintiff realized that XXXX, a former detective working on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff’s case, maliciously made a declaration and warrant for the Plaintiff’s arrest by filing a
false police report. The said declaration warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest contained notable
irregularities and deficiencies.
Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants on or about January XXX. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were blameworthy for negligence, malicious
prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On or about August XXX. Plaintiff was served with a “Notice to Consumer or
Employee and Objection”. In the document, the requesting party sought records from Irvine
Police Department. The requesting party also filed a Proof of Service thereof. The requesting
party also filed a Deposition Subpoena, which requested information as follows: “Records from
XXX to present for the following types of records: any and all photographs relating to the
incident and police reports relating to an altercation on XXXX involving Ms. Lim and Hoag
Security. Incident Report: 20-01167.”
B. ARGUMENTS
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060 (b) authorizes the Court to issue protective
orders restricting the use of discovery methods where the Court determines that a selected
method of discovery is unduly burdensome or irrelevant, taking into account the needs of the
case. A court has the discretion to limit the scope of discovery if it determines that “the burden,
expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information
sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a). Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031.060 (b) provides: The court, for good cause shown, may make
any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2031.060 (b)).
According to well-established California law, protective order motions are directed to the
court’s inherent power to control the proceedings before it; thus, a protective order may be
granted on the court’s own determination that “justice so requires.” See Greyhound Corp. v.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 379-381. For this reason, the grant or denial of relief
therefore lies within the sound discretion of the law and motion judge and is reviewable only for
abuse of discretion. Ibid.
Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena is unduly burdensome because the Requests are overly broad.
Justice requires that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order to protect Plaintiff from an
undue burden and expense, and from the potential of disclosing overbroad information that may not be
relevant to the next phase of trial.
In addition to the foregoing, the Deposition Subpoena also lacks pertinent information,
which would prove Plaintiff’s innocence. In that regard, Plaintiff raises the following concerns on the
Deposition Subpoena:
1. The Subpoena seeks the production of irrelevant information. The requesting party seeks the
production of records from “XXX to present”. The incidence that gave rise to Plaintiff’s
complaint occurred on January XXX. It follows; the request for information dating back to
2015 is not only irrelevant but is also meant to harass and overburden the witness. For this reason,
the Deposition Subpoena should be declared invalid, null and void.
2. The Subpoenaing Party has failed to follow CCP § 1985.3 and CCP § 1985.6. The
requesting party has not provided any authorization signed by Plaintiff or any attorney
acting on Plaintiff’s behalf, for the release of information requested in the subpoena. For
this reason, the Deposition Subpoena is defective, and is therefore null and void.
3. Defendant Herbert Conrad’s name is missing in the record. The Deposition Subpoena does not
include any records relating to Defendant Herbert Conrad. Plaintiff seeks a production of all
records naming Defendant Herbert Conrad, which record(s) will paint a true picture of the January
XXX incident.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
4. There is pertinent evidence that must be included therein. Plaintiff avers that the Deposition
Subpoena has missed out on pertinent evidence, which is required to show the reality of the events
that occurred on January XXX The said evidence includes: All Audio recordings of all Irvine
police officers at the scene; names of the police officers, and their badge numbers; the police
officers’ supervisor’s names, and their badge numbers; XXXX declaration of arrest and
her audio recordings; audio recording of Plaintiff’s communication with the officer at the hospital
on January XXX; and all email correspondences during the months of January-April XXX
regarding the incident.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court grant the following Order(s):
1. THAT this Honorable Court issues an Order that records dating before January
25, 2020 need not be produced or made available at all.
2. THAT this Honorable Court issues an Order to modify the Deposition Subpoena,
to reflect Plaintiff’s concerns above, and
3. THAT this Court grant any other Order it deems just.
DATED:
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
XXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been
sent to the Defendant in the following address:
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
Attorney for Defendant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
DATED:
___________________________
XXX
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )