Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Asics America Corporation, v. Shoebacca, Ltd.", Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Shoebacca Ltd.’s 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 and Cross-Defendant Asics America Corporation’s Objection to the Report and Recommendations of Discovery Referee on Matters Heard March 24, 2023 [ROA # 516], along with the references to the foregoing exhibits in Plaintiff’s Objection [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.)

The Court finds the documents Defendant 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.) This discovery motion was not submitted as abasis for the adjudication of matters other than discovery motions.

In response to the Discovery Referee’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed an Objection, which submitted, and referenced, Exhibits 4-9, 13, 20, 22, 23, 30, 33 and 34. (Kelly Declaration, ¶¶ 3-4.) These documents constitute Defendant’s confidential financial information, including Defendant’s balance sheets, operating statements, profit and loss statements, and income sheets for 2018, 2019, and 2020, along with testimony which discusses these financial statements. (Kelly Declaration, ¶ 4.) 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).)

Other than the Court, no persons or parties are authorized to inspect the sealed record. The sealed material may not be disclosed in anything that is subsequently publicly filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e).)

Moving party to give notice.