Hernandez v. Syncrasy

Background

Gerardo Hernandez sued Syncrasy and Franklin St. RC Apartments LLC, alleging that inaccessible facilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code section 19959. Franklin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order and a limited extension of time to respond to discovery. Syncrasy filed a statement of non-opposition. Hernandez opposed the protective order but did not directly address the requested extension.

Before filing the motion, Franklin sought protection for leasing documents and for a document containing personally identifiable information about third parties who parked in accessible parking spaces at the property. Franklin proposed using the Northern District of California’s Model Stipulated Protective Order. Hernandez proposed limiting confidential treatment to leasing agreements and excluding information relating solely to accessibility-compliance agreements.

Protective-order analysis

Rule 26(c) permits a court, for good cause, to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party seeking protection must show, for each document, that specific harm or prejudice would result without an order. The court stated that the Northern District’s model protective order is presumptively reasonable and that a party seeking to change it must show specific harm or prejudice from the proposed change.

The court found that Franklin established good cause for a limited protective order. The leasing documents contained rental pricing and other proprietary business terms, including information concerning gross sales, a third-party franchise agreement, advertising and remodeling plans, security deposits, and construction deposits. The court found that disclosure could harm Franklin’s competitive standing.

The court also found good cause to protect license-plate and parking information. Although license-plate numbers are publicly visible, the court explained that they are associated with individual registered owners and drivers and therefore constitute personally identifiable information in this context. Because the information concerned third parties rather than the litigants, the court found that third-party privacy interests supported protection.

The court rejected Hernandez’s argument that the model order would create blanket protection. The order limited confidentiality to information or items entitled to protection under applicable legal principles, provided a process for challenging confidentiality designations, and did not prevent Hernandez from obtaining the leasing agreements or license-plate information. The order also did not automatically authorize filing protected information under seal; the parties still had to follow the court’s local sealing procedures.

Disposition

The court granted Franklin’s motion for entry of its proposed protective order and granted Franklin’s request for an extension of time to produce documents it sought to designate as confidential. The approved protective order was attached as Exhibit A. Franklin was ordered to produce the documents within seven days from the date of the order, and the March 23, 2023 hearing was vacated. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa S. Cisneros.