Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 20STCV44140 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV44140, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44140 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Southern California Edison Co. vs. Herman Weissker Inc, et. al., Case No. 0STCV44140

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Uphold Confidentiality Designation

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company (SCE) moves for an order upholding its confidentiality designation of the Settlement Agreement in Rachel Kropp, et al. v. Southern California Edison Co. (LASC Case No. BC698926) (the Kropp Action). The motion is granted.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060, subd. (b), “[t]he 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,” including “[t]hat 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060, subd. (b)(5). A court thus has “broad authority to protect confidential commercial information.” (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1141.)

The parties in this action have stipulated to a Protective Order under which a party may designate as “Confidential” any documents that it “in good faith believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law.” (Protective Order ¶ 2.) A designating party must affix the legend “Confidential” on each page of any document containing designated materials. (Protective Order ¶ 4(a).) Access to designated materials is limited to certain specified persons. (Protective Order ¶ 7.)

A party may object to a “Confidential” designation by first advising counsel for the designating party of its objections; counsel for the designating party may then either (1) agree to de-designate the materials or (2) file a motion with the Court seeking to uphold the designations. (Protective Order ¶ 6.) The designating party shall have the burden on any motion of establishing the application of its “Confidential” designation. (Ibid.)

Pursuant to the Protective Order, SCE designated as confidential the Settlement Agreement in the Kropp Action. (Kroeger Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1.) The Protective Order was originally entered into in order to facilitate SCE’s production of the Agreement to Defendants. (Kroeger Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.)

Counsel for SCE states that Defendants have breached the Protective Order on two occasions on June 10 and 17, 2022, by revealing confidential details of the Settlement Agreement in papers served and filed in this Court, without affixing the “Confidential” marking required by the Protective Order. (Kroeger Decl. ¶ 12.) On July 1, 2022, Defendants formally objected to SCE’s designation of the Agreement as confidential. (Kroeger Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendants objected on the grounds that (1) Paragraph 13 of the Settlement Agreement does not cover this lawsuit; and (2) Paragraph 17 of the Protective Order references Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551 (regarding the filing of records under seal). (Kroeger Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 7.)

SCE has the burden of establishing the application of its “Confidential” designation with respect to the Settlement Agreement. (Protective Order ¶ 6.) SCE argues that the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement should be upheld based on the privacy protection afforded to settlements (See e.g. Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241 [“The privacy of a settlement is generally understood and accepted in our legal system”] disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531); the fact that the settlement involves the financial information of minors; the Settlement Agreement’s confidentiality provision; and Defendants’ prior agreement to the designation.