Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 19STCV30425, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 19STCV30425    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51 

Date: 5/16/23

Case #19STCV30425

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO SEAL

Motion filed: 4/14/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Integra LifeSciences Corporation (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Stefanie Gabler (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order sealing an Amended Exhibit F (ENG).

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

This is a products liability action wherein Plaintiff alleges that a defective ventriculoperitoneal brain shunt device (“CERTAS valve”) was placed in her, which later caused her to develop hydrocephalus and brain injuries. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

On 8/27/19, Plaintiff filed her complaint against defendants Providence Health System Southern California; Providence Holy Cross Medical Center; DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.; Integra LifeSciences Corporation; and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) Negligence; and (2) Strict Products Liability. On 1/19/21, pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiff dismissed all claims from the action except for manufacturing defect.

On 4/14/23, Defendant filed the instant motion to seal. No opposition has been filed to date. On 5/4/23, Plaintiff filed her notice of non-opposition to the instant motion.

ANALYSIS

A party that requests that a record or portion of a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing it, which must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.551(b)(1).) A copy of the motion or application to seal must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the judge orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted copy of all papers as well as a redacted version. (Id., subd. (b)(2).) Other parties must be served with only the public redacted version. The moving party must lodge the record with the court when the motion or application is made, unless good cause is shown for not lodging it or it has been lodged previously. The lodged record is conditionally under seal pending the judge's determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.551(b)(4).)

Here, the instant motion is accompanied by a supporting memorandum of points and authorities in addition to Defendant’s counsel’s declaration stating that the record is a confidential manufacturing record from Defendant. (Decl. of Carissa A. Casolari, ¶ 6.) Defendant asserts that “the document contains company confidential and trade secret information, which would substantially harm Integra’s economic interests if they became public.” (Def.’s Mot. 3:24–26.) Defendant has also lodged with the court a copy of Amended Exhibit F (ENG).

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s unopposed motion.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.