Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

hunter perry, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

warner bros. entertainment, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV02390

Hearing Date: January 12, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to seal exhibit J to plaintiff’s complaint

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Hunter Perry (through his mother Jessica Perry), Jessica Perry, and Devin Perry (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (“WBEI”) and Warner Bros. Discovery Global Consumer Products, Inc. (“WBCPI”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Hunter Perry’s eye was impaled by Defendants’ defective Harry Potter wand replica with light-up and pen functionality when his older brother waved the wand like the children do in the Harry Potter movies and books. Plaintiffs allege that the sharp, pointed shaft (the larger writing portion of the pen) ejected from the hilt/cap, flew across the room, and pierced Hunter Perry’s left eye, rupturing his eyeball and causing his inner eye fluid to spill out and run down his cheek.

WBEI is alleged to be the entertainment company, which produces films through its studio division, the Warner Bros. Pictures Group. WBCPI is alleged to be a company created by Warner Bros. to license merchandising rights to WBEI’s films. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants hold the merchandising rights to the film version of the Harry Potter series and that they authorized The Noble Collection, Inc. (“TNCI”) and its affiliates to design, produce, distribute, and sell products related to the films.

The complaint, filed on October 13, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of warranty; and (3) strict product liability.

B. Motion on Calendar

On December 8, 2023, “specially appearing” WBEI filed a motion to seal Exhibit J to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On December 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to seal.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC Rule 2.550(c).) “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (CRC Rule 2.551(a).)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d), “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

DISCUSSION

WBEI moves to seal Exhibit J of the complaint, arguing that it is currently redacted only to remove financial information but that the entirety of the document represents proprietary trade secrets arising out of its relationship with WBEI and its licensee identified through the Product License Agreement dated July 26, 2017. WBEI states that TNCI disclosed the agreement to Plaintiff during pre-trial discovery in another case currently pending in the Virginia Superior Court. (Evan Dotta Decl., ¶6.)

Plaintiffs do not oppose the substantive merits of the motion, but only argue that there are some inaccurate statements made by WBEI in its motion about Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint. The Court declines to adjudicate the veracity of the complaint’s allegations at this time.

WBEI argues that the agreement should be filed under seal to protect against public disclosure to protect its interests. It states that it recognizes the public’s interest in the judicial system, but that there are overriding interests to protect its intellectual property and business relationships. It also argues that this is a products liability and negligence case, such that the general interest in agreements in the entertainment industry need not be disclosed and that its licensing agreements with private third parties should be confidential. Otherwise, WBEI claims that it will suffer irreparable harm with respect to its intellectual property, long-standing relationship with its licensee and product manufacturer, and its direct competitors.

Given that there is no dispute at this point, the Court will allow the sealing of the document.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.’s motion to seal is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to refile the initial complaint with the redacted Exhibit J, which will be deemed the operative complaint. The complaint currently on file with the unredacted Exhibit J will be withdrawn at that time.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

DATED: January 12, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court