Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Asics America Corporation v. Shoebacca Ltd., Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Shoebacca Ltd.’s unopposed Motion to Seal Confidential Documents is GRANTED. Exhibits 4-9, 13, 20, 22, 23, 30, 33 and 34, attached to the Declaration of Collin P. Wedel in Support of Plaintiff’s objection to the Discovery Referee’s March 24, 2023, Report and Recommendations [ROA # 516], along with the references to the foregoing exhibits in Plaintiff’s objection to the Discovery Referee’s March 24, 2023, Report and Recommendations [ROA # 515] are sealed.

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1079.), However, “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208, fn. 25; accord, In re Marriage of Tamir, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1085-1086; Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68, 85, 100-101; see Mercury, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 90-100 [evaluation of NBC Subsidiary case and policy considerations]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 497 [relevant discovery materials submitted in support of and in opposition to substantive pretrial motions are discovery documents “submitted as a basis for adjudication”].)

Defendant presents evidence the documents it seeks to seal were the subject of a discovery motion, namely, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with, and further responses to, its sixth set of requests for production of documents. (Declaration of Philip M. Kelly, ¶¶ 2-5.) The Court finds this discovery motion was not submitted as a basis for the adjudication of matters other than discovery motions.

According to attorney Kelly, in response to the discovery referee recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP nos. 209, 210, 211, 214 and 215, Plaintiff filed an objection, and it submitted Exhibits 4-9, 13, 20, 22, 23, 30, 33, and 34, which constitute Defendant’s confidential financial information, namely, its balance sheets, operating statements, profit and loss statements, income sheets, as well as testimony discussing those financial statements. (Kelly Declaration, ¶¶ 3-4; see also Kelly Declaration, ¶ 5 [the sensitive financial information was referenced on pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Plaintiff’s Objection].) These documents had already been designated as either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. (Kelly Declaration, ¶ 4.)

The evidence shows the subject documents were the subject of a discovery motion, and the law is clear that “there is no generalized presumption of access to all court-filed discovery material.” (Mercury, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 100.)

Further, the subject documents are confidential financial information, to which Defendant has a constitutional right to privacy. (Overstock, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 503; but see In re Marriage of Tamir, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1087-1089 [while party has privacy interest in its financial information, it is not necessarily entitled to have all of its financial records sealed].)

Plaintiff has not challenged the sealing of the subject records, and it has not raised any arguments, or produced any evidence, that would override Defendant’s right to privacy. Therefore, the Court finds Defendant has met its burden to seal the subject financial records. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

Moving party to give notice.