Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00034150-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00034150-CU-PL-CTL DUARTE VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Polaris Industries, Inc.'s Application to Seal Portions of Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

As background, Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris) and Plaintiff agreed to a confidential settlement of all claims. A motion for determination of good faith settlement is scheduled on August 25, 2023. In this motion, Polaris seeks to seal only those unredacted portions of the application that disclose the value of the settlement and preclude open discussion of the settlement amount, which has otherwise been disclosed to the Court and Defendant Acme Cycles, Inc. (Acme).

California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 authorizes the court to seal records only if it expressly finds: (1) an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (3) a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) there is no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules Court, rule (CRC) 2.550(d).) A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. (CRC 2.551(a).) The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. (Ibid.) NBC Subsidiary listed examples of various interests that courts have identified as potentially constituting an overriding interest to justify closure of courtroom proceedings and by inference sealing otherwise open court documents, including 'enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose.' (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46.) However, in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, the court concluded 'more than a mere agreement of the parties to seal documents filed in a public courtroom' is needed. (Universal, supra, at p. 1281.) There must be 'a specific showing of serious injury.' (Id., at p. 1282.) '[S]pecificity is essential.

(Citation.) Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.' (Ibid.) Here, Polaris provided the required specificity. As Polaris explained, a sealing order would enforce the contractual agreement between Plaintiff and Polaris (supra), foster settlement and efficient resolution of litigation, avoid future prejudice to Polaris as disclosure of monetary amounts could subject the parties to a future competitive disadvantage and protect Plaintiff's interest in maintaining privacy over his financial affairs. (See also, Universal City, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1285-1286 (financial information involving confidential matters relating to the business operations of a party may be sealed where public revelation of the information would interfere with the party's ability to effectively compete in the marketplace and there is a substantial probability that their revelation would prejudice the foregoing Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993750  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DUARTE VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00034150-CU-PL-CTL legitimate interests of the party).) The upcoming hearing on Polaris' application for good faith settlement determination will be held in open court and the Court will consider the value of the settlement at that time, which was previously disclosed to all parties. Redaction of the settlement value will not preclude a complete evaluation of the application for good faith settlement and the fact Polaris settled with Plaintiff, leaving Acme as the remaining defendant to 'defend the design' has no bearing on whether or not the settlement value should be sealed.

The Court finds: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Polaris is ordered to submit an order adequately identifying the portion of the record that is ordered sealed, i.e., the value of the settlement as well as the factual basis for the granting of this Sealing Request. The Court also grants Polaris' request the settlement value only be discussed at sidebar at the hearing on the application for good faith settlement and not in open court. The order must not be sealed.

(Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.551(e)(2).) No person other than the Court is authorized to inspect the sealed records at this time. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.551(e)(3).) The parties are not prohibited from disclosing the contents of any materials that have been sealed in anything that is subsequently publicly-filed subject to further court order. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.551(e)(4).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993750  42