Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Asics America Corporation v. Shoebacca, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Asics America Corporation’s Motion Pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551 to Seal Certain Documents Filed in Connection with its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

Exhibits U and AAA to the Declaration of Collin P. Wedel [ROA # 613, 624, 625], along with references to the foregoing exhibits in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel [ROA # 623] 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 filed in connection with Plaintiff’s opposition to a discovery motion, namely, Defendant’s “Motion to Compel Compliance With and Further Responses to Shoebacca, Ltd’s First Set of Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission to Asics America Corporation.” (Declaration of Collin P. Wedel, ¶¶ 1-4; Declaration of Paul Ljucovic, ¶ 3.) The discovery motion and opposition were not submitted as a basis for the adjudication of matters other than discovery motions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3); see Mercury, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 100 [“there is no generalized presumption of access to all court-filed discovery material”].)

In addition, the subject documents contain non-public information regarding Plaintiff’s business practices and strategies, its inventory management systems and strategies, internal strategies and procedures for selling off-price products, and policies and procedures regarding the functionality, capabilities, and uses of its inventory management systems and related policies. Disclosure of these documents would cause competitive, financial and/or commercial harm to Plaintiff. (Ljucovic Declaration, ¶¶ 4-5.) Thus, Plaintiff designated these documents as either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the April 9, 2021, Stipulation and Protective Order. (Wedel Declaration, ¶¶ 2-3.)

Given the foregoing, Plaintiff has a sufficient constitutional right to privacy as to these documents. (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.