Q: What such situation has to do with protective order?

A: Under California law, a protective order is a court order that is designed to protect a person from harassment, stalking, or abuse. It can be used to prevent the defendant from contacting the plaintiff, coming near them, or engaging in other specified behaviors.

In the context of a legal case involving a request to produce a person for deposition or disclose their identity, a protective order may come into play in a few ways:

1. If the plaintiff believes that disclosing the identity of the person or requiring them to sit for a deposition would put them at risk of harassment, abuse, or harm, they could seek a protective order from the court to prevent this disclosure or deposition from occurring.

2. If the person whose identity or deposition is being sought is a sensitive witness or has confidential information, a protective order could be used to limit the scope of questioning or restrict access to their identity or testimony.

3. In some cases, a protective order might be used to set guidelines or limitations around the deposition process itself to prevent abuse or harassment during questioning.

However, based on the details provided, it seems the core issue is about the appropriateness of the defendant's response to a request for identification, rather than a direct issue of witness safety or confidentiality requiring a protective order. The defendant cannot unilaterally dictate the terms of discovery, like demanding that the plaintiff depose a person rather than responding to a specific identification request.

If the plaintiff feels the defendant's response is oppressive or inadequate, they could raise this with the court and seek to compel a more appropriate response. The judge would then consider the relevance and proportionality of the request and response in deciding whether to compel additional information from the defendant.

So in summary, while protective orders can intersect with issues around depositions and identifying witnesses, they are typically used to address specific concerns around safety, harassment, or confidentiality, rather than to resolve disputes about the general adequacy of discovery responses between parties. The plaintiff would likely need to seek court intervention through a motion to compel or similar procedure to address the core issue here.