Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV28163, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions. The tentative ruling will not become the
final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to
submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must
agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call
Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0160) and state
that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of
the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative
ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at
the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 20STCV28163 Hearing Date: March 20, 2023 Dept: 40
HEARING DATE: 3/20/23 JUDGE/DEPT.: A. Richardson/40
CASE NAME: Muir v. Stewart, et al.
CASE NUMBER: 20STCV28163 OP.
COMPL. FILED: 7/27/20
TENTATIVE RULING: Motion
to Seal (x3)
MOVING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart, LLP (n/k/a Collins + Collins, LLP)
(“CCMS”), Brian K. Stewart, Robert H. Stellwagen, and Michele L. Gamble.
RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Samuel J. Muir.
I. Motion to Seal Deposition Transcripts Used at Trial,
CRS #8929
Defendants move to seal certain portions of the depositions
of Michele Gamble and Harold Boyerman that were used at trial on the grounds
they relate to internal governance of CCMS, business information, strategy,
investigations and partnership dealings.
The Court is inclined to DENY this motion to seal but
welcomes oral argument. While the cited testimony
appears to relate to internal operations and discussions of the operations of
CCMS, they do not appear to contain any trade secrets and consist of information
that is too general for the public to draw any conclusions about other than
general impressions as to the operations of the law firm. In sum, it is unclear what is confidential or
merits sealing in the cited passages.
II. Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits and Transcripts of
Proceedings, CRS #6711 and Motion to Seal Materials Submitted with Proposed
Statement of Decision, CRS #1604
As to the second two motions to seal, the Court will
continue the hearing and requires additional information in order to be able to
rule on the voluminous requests on hundreds of exhibits/ excerpts of testimony/lines
in the Defendant’s Proposed Statement of Decision (SOD). The parties are reminded that when it comes
to a request to seal an entire document, only minimum redactions are allowed,
and the Court will not redact an entire document when only a portion of it contains
information that should be sealed. (Cal
Rules of Court, rule 2.550-2.551; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior
Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178.)
The Court notes that the lodged documents that contain the
relevant excerpts of testimony and exhibits contain 1) no tabs but rather
apparently include the exhibit number on only the first page of any given
exhibit; 2) use different exhibit numbers than the actual exhibits used at
trial or in connection with the statement of decision; 3) do not highlight the
deposition testimony that is being sought to be excluded; and 4) contain
multiple duplicate exhibits as between the second two motions (i.e, many of the
same exhibits are referenced twice).
The Court orders that the moving party resubmit the
documents, as follows:
1)
The documents proposed to be sealed should be re-lodged
in volumes containing each exhibit or transcript of witness testimony, tabbed in
order according to 1) the actual exhibit number used at trial or in connection
with the statement of decision or 2) the name of the witness (i.e., Gamble Test.
or Gamble Dep.). The last exhibit can be the Defendant’s Proposed Statement of
Decision. Please use physical tabs given the voluminous number and length of
the exhibits;
2)
Highlight the actual portion of each exhibit, deposition,
or the Statement of Decision you seek to have sealed;
3)
Enumerate all of the excerpts of testimony you seek to
seal starting with number 1, and include the excerpt number in the margin
(i.e., #1) beside the highlighted text to be sealed, on the deposition page;
4)
Only provide one copy of any given exhibit or excerpt,
even if it is in connection with both motions.
The Court further orders the moving party to submit a table akin
to those prescribed in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 for summary judgment separate
statements or rule 3.1354 for written objections, with columns to describe 1)
the citation of the document; 2) the content to be sealed, 3) the reasons for
why the document should be sealed; 4) the grounds for any opposition; and a
space for the Court to rule. Some hypothetical
examples (not based on any actual evidence or argument by either party) are
included below. Plaintiff will be given
the table with the first three columns filled in and will return it back to the
moving party, who will then lodge it at the same time the tabbed documents are
lodged since it may contain private or confidential information. While the
exemplar table below is provided in ‘portrait’ mode, the final table can be
provided in ‘landscape’ mode.
|
Cite |
Content to be sealed |
Grounds for sealing |
Plaintiff’s position |
Court’s ruling on motion |
|
Trial Exhibit 125 |
Copies of billing records for attorney X and Y [spell out]
|
Attorney-client privilege, Cal. Evid. Code § 917 |
This exhibit is outside the attorney-client privilege
because . . . |
Granted __ Denied __ |
|
Transcript Excerpt #1, Michele Gamble 1430:16-1432:4 |
Testimony regarding X [spell out] |
Third Party Privacy |
Response |
Granted __ Denied __ |
|
Deft’s SOD line 27:28- 28:6 |
Quote or summarize |
Confidential Financial Information |
Response |
Granted __ Denied __ |