Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Asics America Corporation v. Shoebacca, Ltd.", Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Asics America Corporation’s unopposed Motion Pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551 to Seal Certain Documents Filed in Connection with Defendant and Cross-Complainant Shoebacca, Ltd’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

Exhibits L, Q, R, V, FF, and QQ to the Declaration of Philip M. Kelly [ROA #564, 565, 566, 570, 578, and 587], along with references to the foregoing exhibits in Defendant’s motion to compel further responses [ROA # 562] 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 Plaintiff seeks to seal were the subject of a discovery motion, namely, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to its first set of requests for production, special interrogatories, and requests for admission. (Declaration of Collin P. Wedel, ¶¶ 2-7; Declaration of Paul Ljucovic, ¶ 3.) This discovery motion was not submitted as a basis for the adjudication of matters other than discovery motions.

In addition, the subject documents contain non-public information regarding Plaintiff’s business practices and strategies, inventory management policies and procedures, and financial data and performance that Plaintiff considers confidential and sensitive because its public disclosure would create competitive, financial, and commercial harm to it. (Ljucovic Declaration, ¶¶ 4-5.) Thus, Plaintiff produced these documents in discovery as “confidential,” and in compliance with the April 9, 2021, Stipulation and Protective Order. (Wedel Declaration, ¶¶ 2-7.)

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 Plaintiff 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].)

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