§ 2031.060.Motion for protective order; types of protective orders; requirements for seeking

Title 4. Civil Discovery Act · Chapter 14. Inspection, Copying, Testing, Sampling, and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored · Article 1. Inspection Demand · Last amended 2022 · Last verified July 29, 2026

In one sentenceSection 2031.060 lets a party or affected person move for a protective order against an inspection demand, empowers the court to issue any of six listed orders for good cause, sets the accessibility burden and cost-allocation framework for electronically stored information, and mandates sanctions against whichever side loses the motion.

Full Text of § 2031.060

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

(a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(1) That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.

(2) That the time specified in Section 2031.260 to respond to the set of demands, or to a particular item or category in the set, be extended.

(3) That the place of production be other than that specified in the demand.

(4) That the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions.

(5) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.

(6) That the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.

(c) The party or affected person who seeks a protective order regarding the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored information on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.

(d) If the party or affected person from whom discovery of electronically stored information is sought establishes that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause, subject to any limitations imposed under subdivision (f).

(e) If the court finds good cause for the production of electronically stored information from a source that is not reasonably accessible, the court may set conditions for the discovery of the electronically stored information, including allocation of the expense of discovery.

(f) The court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source that is reasonably accessible, if the court determines that any of the following conditions exist:

(1) It is possible to obtain the information from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.

(3) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought.

(4) The likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.

(g) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the party to whom the demand was directed provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just.

(h) Except as provided in subdivision (i), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(i) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (h), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.

End

Plain-English Summary

An inspection demand can be oppressive even when it fits the formal requirements of this chapter, and this section gives the party or any other affected person a way to push back. On receiving a demand, that party or person may promptly move for a protective order, supported by a meet and confer declaration.

For good cause, the court may issue any order justice requires to protect against unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense, and the section lists six examples: relieving the responding party of producing some or all of the demanded items, extending the response deadline, moving the place of production, imposing terms and conditions on the inspection, protecting trade secrets or other confidential commercial information, or sealing what gets produced until a court unseals it.

Electronically stored information carries its own framework layered onto the general protective-order power. The party or person resisting production bears the burden of showing that the information comes from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense; even after that showing, the court can still order the discovery on a finding of good cause, and it may condition that order on allocating the expense of production. And separate from the accessibility question, the court has to cut back discovery of electronically stored information, reasonably accessible or not, when it is obtainable more easily elsewhere, cumulative, already adequately pursued, or disproportionate to the amount in controversy and the stakes of the case. As with the parallel motions throughout the Civil Discovery Act, the losing side on the motion faces a mandatory monetary sanction absent substantial justification, and the section preserves the recurring safe harbor against sanctions for electronically stored information lost through the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic system, without excusing any separate duty to preserve it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who can move for a protective order under this section?

The party to whom the demand was directed, or any other party or affected person.

What kinds of protective orders can a court issue?

The section lists six examples, from relieving a party of producing some or all of the demanded items to sealing what is produced, and the list is illustrative rather than exclusive.

Who bears the burden on electronically stored information that isn't reasonably accessible?

The party or affected person resisting production, though the court can still order the discovery on a showing of good cause.

When must a court limit discovery of electronically stored information even if it is accessible?

When it is obtainable more easily or cheaply elsewhere, is cumulative, has already been adequately pursued, or is disproportionate to the case's stakes.

Is a sanction automatic if the motion fails or is unsuccessfully opposed?

Yes, unless the losing side acted with substantial justification or a sanction would be unjust.

Amendment History

(Added by Stats.2004, c. 182 (A.B.3081), § 23, operative July 1, 2005. Amended by Stats.2009, c. 5 (A.B.5), § 9, eff. June 29, 2009; Stats.2021, c. 124 (A.B.938), § 15, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from the West's Annotated California Codes / Thomson Reuters. Enacted by the California Legislature. Last verified July 29, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: motion for protective order document production californiaesi not reasonably accessible cost shifting california