Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV30055, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV30055 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: 74
Gavin
Polone, et al. v. New Regency Productions, Inc., et al
Defendants’ Motion to Seal Portions
of Motion to Compel Judicial Reference
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a contractual dispute.
On
December 5, 2024, Plaintiffs Gavin Polone and Pariah (Plaintiffs) filed a
redacted complaint against Defendants New Regency Productions, Inc, PK Prods,
Inc., and Yariv Milchan (Defendants).
On
February 13, 2024, Defendants filed a redacted motion to compel
judicial reference and redacted declarations in support. Defendants also
lodged unredacted versions of the papers with the court. That same day,
Defendants filed this motion to seal portions of the motion to compel judicial
reference.
LEGAL STANDARD
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).)
To
grant such an order, the court must expressly find that . . . “an overriding
interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record, an
overriding interest supports sealing the records, a substantial probability
exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not
sealed, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and no less restrictive
means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
2.550, subd. (d).)
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.)
DISCUSSION
In
support of their motion to seal, Defendants cite potentially overriding
interests. First, the motion to compel judicial reference and declarations
contain information that the parties contractually agreed to keep confidential.
(See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Locke) (1999) 20
Cal.4th 1178, 1222.) Under the contract, the parties cannot disclose any
information related directly or indirectly to their agreement and project.
(Complaint, ¶ 40; Ex. A-1, ¶ 11.) Second, the motion to compel judicial
reference discloses the parties’ private financial and proprietary information.
Defendants’ interests would be compromised if the information were open to the
public.
Moreover,
Defendants have lodged unredacted papers that highlight the proposed redactions.
The court has reviewed the papers, and the following proposed redactions are
narrowly tailored to protect Defendants’ overriding interests:
Notice
of Motion to Compel Judicial Reference
Contractual terms on page 2, lines 8-12.
Table
of Contents
Contractual terms on page 3, lines 7-14.
Memorandum
of Points and Authorities
Subject of parties’ confidential project and contractual
terms on page 7, lines 5-11 and 13-21.
Contractual
terms on page 7, line 23 to page 8, line 5.
Contractual
terms on page 8, lines 6-10.
Contractual
terms and subject of parties’ confidential project on page 8, line 13 to page
9, line 2.
Contractual
terms on page 9, lines 3-21.
Contractual
terms on page 10, lines 9-11.
Contractual
terms on page 10, lines 13-14.
Contractual
terms on page 10, lines 22-24.
Disputed
contractual terms on page 10, lines 27-28.
Contractual
terms on page 11, lines 1-3.
Contractual
terms on page 11, lines 4-9.
Contractual
terms on page 11, lines 24-26.
Subject
of parties’ confidential project and contractual terms on page 12, lines 10- 25.
Subject
of parties confidential project and contractual terms on page 12, line 26 to page
13, line 4.
Contractual
terms on page 13, lines 7-18.
Contractual
terms on page 14, lines 1-2.
Possible
contractual terms on page 14, lines 21-23.
Contractual
terms on page 15, lines 8-9.
Contractual
terms on page 15, lines 17-23.
Contractual
terms on page 17, lines 10-11.
Contractual
terms on page 17, lines 12-14.
Contractual
terms on page 17, lines 17-24.
Contractual
terms on page 18, lines 6-10.
Contractual
terms on page 18, lines 22-25.
Contractual
terms on page 19, lines 9-10.
Contractual
terms on page 19, lines 19-20.
Contractual
terms on page 20, lines 2-5.
Contractual
terms on page 20, lines 22-28.
Contractual
terms on page 21, lines 4 and 7-8.
Declaration
of Richard B. Kendall
Contractual terms on page 2, lines 11-12.
Declaration
of David C. Friedman
Subject of parties’ confidential project and contractual
terms on page 2, lines 7- 21.
However,
the court does not find the following redactions in the memorandum of points
and authorities narrowly tailored: page 9, line 22 to page 10, line 5; page 15,
line 25 to page 16, line 4; page 16, lines 14-25. These proposed redactions are
not limited to protecting Defendants’ cited overriding interests.
CONCLUSION
The
court grants Defendants’ motion to seal in part.
Defendants
shall give notice.