Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV45914, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45914    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 74

Community Attire, Inc. v. Urban Fitz, Inc. et al.

Motion to Seal

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a breach of contract action.

Plaintiff Community Attire, Inc. filed a complaint against defendants Urban Fitz, Inc. and David Yadidsion (Defendants). 

On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff deposed Dr. Philip Eitzman (Eitzman) as person most qualified for non-party 3M.  Eitzman testified under the parties’ Protective Order.

3M now moves for a protective order regarding the use of Eitzman’s testimony at trial.

LEGAL STANDARD

            After a deposition, an affected party may move for a protective order upon a showing of good cause.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(a).)  A party may then move to seal materials used at trial or for motions other than a discovery proceeding.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).)

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) Consequently, pleadings, motions, evidence, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; rather, a prior court order is necessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).)  

The governing rule is Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) which states “that the court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:  

1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; 

2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record; 

3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 

4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 

5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” 

If the court fails to make the required findings, the order is deficient and cannot support sealing. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Sanctions may be imposed for overboard requests to seal. (Id. at p. 500.)  

DISCUSSION

            Eitzman’s declaration includes specific details regarding the creation of 3M respirators and particular details which identify respirators as counterfeits.  3M provides good cause for a protective order both to maintain the propriety of 3M’s trade secrets, but also to protect the public by ensuring 3M can continue determining which respirators are authentic and which are counterfeit.  Defendants oppose the finding of good cause on the grounds that (1) counterfeiters would be unlikely to read the testimony and (2) 3M already publishes materials on how to spot counterfeits.  The Court finds that neither of these details overrides 3M’s interest in protecting trade secrets. 

The Court finds that 3M’s proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.  The proposed sealing includes portions of Eitzman’s testimony regarding the process used to identify counterfeits, the specific deficiencies he identified in the counterfeit respirators and other details about the design and manufacturing of the respirators.  The Court finds the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants 3M’s Motion for a Protective Order.  The Court grants 3M’s Motion to Seal:

·       24:1–22

·       25:2–10

·       25:25–26:9

·       26:11–15

·       27:10–28:6

·       28:9–20

·       28:22–29:3

·       29:6–9

·       29:12–13

·       30:5–11

·       30:13–23

·       31:17–32:22

·       32:25–34:1

·       34:11–35:2

·       35:5–17

·       38:22–39:15

·       40:10–11

·       40:18–41:12

·       41:20–42:1

·       42:17–23