Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Asics America Corporation v. Shoebacca, Ltd.", Date: 2023-06-14 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 R and S, attached to the Declaration of Collin P. Wedel in Support of Asics America Corporation’s Opposition to Shoebacca, Ltd.’s Motion for an Order Granting the Pro Hac Vice Application of Braden M. Wayne to Appear as Counsel for Shoebacca, Ltd., [ROA # 456, 457], along with the references to the foregoing exhibits [ROA # 455] 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, the presumption of public access to the court file may not apply to a company’s confidential and proprietary business records (McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989), or to irrelevant materials (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 500).

As noted, Exhibits R and S were submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Grant the Pro Hac Vice Application of Braden Wayne, and these two documents include testimony regarding Defendant’s response to a 2020 cyberattack. (Declaration of Philip M. Kelly, ¶¶ 2-3.) The testimony was designated as “Confidential” under the Stipulated Protective Order, and Defendant explains the response to the cyberattack was coordinated by its attorneys, and a special response team retained by Defendant and its insurance company. (Kelly Declaration, ¶¶ 3-4.) Certain sensitive information about the cyberattack, and Defendant’s response, was provided to Plaintiff pursuant to a non-waiver agreement, in which the parties agreed any testimony or documents provided would not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege. (Kelly Declaration, ¶ 4.)

According to Defendant, the cyberattack did not permanently impact any documents related to this dispute, or Defendant’s computer systems generally. (Kelly Declaration, ¶ 5.) Further, Exhibits R and S have no relevance whatsoever to this contract dispute. Instead, those declarations were submitted in support of Plaintiff’s contention that Mr. Wayne’s pro hac vice application should be denied because his involvement in the response to the cyberattack might make him a witness in this action.

Since Exhibits R and S are irrelevant to the resolution of this action, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion. (See Overstock.com, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 500 [public’s right of access to court records does not extend to irrelevant materials submitted to the Court].)

Further, the subject testimony includes Defendant’s highly confidential and commercially sensitive business information. (See McGuan, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 988-989 [business records that may reveal a company’s business methods and processes, and which are maintained as confidential and disseminated within the organization on a limited basis, is properly sealed from the public].)

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.