Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 19STCV10435, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

On November 1, 2024, Defendants, Creative Artists Agency, LLC and Andrew Miller, filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The motion is redacted.

On the same day, Defendants filed their Motion to File Lodged Unredacted Summary Judgment Briefing Under Seal.

A motion or application to file under seal must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) “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;

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

Pursuant to Rule 2.550(e), “[a]n order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

“A request to seal a document must be filed publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration or affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” (In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416.) “[A]t a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

Defendants move for an order to seal certain exhibits filed in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and lodged conditionally under seal. Specifically, Defendants seek to file under seal Exhibits 30-33, 35-45, 48-49, 75, B, D-H of Defendants’ Compendium of Exhibits, and Exhibits A-G attached to the Declaration of Sascha Penn (collectively, the Confidential Documents). Defendants seek to seal the Confidential Documents and all references thereto in all Defendants’ filings in support of their motion for summary judgment. Defendants also seek to redact non-party email addresses.

The Court previously granted Defendants’ motion to seal the very same information in connection to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (See Minute Order, 11/06/25.) Given the foregoing, the Court again finds there exists an overriding interest in the confidentiality of the foregoing documents relating to the internal communications and nonparties’ propriety creative process, that the overriding interest supports sealing the record, and that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.

Competitive harm may serve as an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record. (Universal City Studios v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285- 1286.) Moreover, it is undisputed that the information is subject to a protective order entered in this matter, which supports the conclusion that the documents should be sealed. (See, e.g., Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 484 [“As a practical matter, this has meant documents subject to a protective order often remain outside public purview on a ‘good cause’ showing akin to that which supported issuance of the protective order in the first place.”] [citing Phillips v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 [“When a court grants a protective order for information produced during discovery, it already has determined that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.”]].) Additionally, the “enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose” can form the basis of an order to seal. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1207 fn. 46.) The Court further finds that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to the documents subject to the protective order and to the documents which contain nonparty email addresses, and that no less restrictive means exists to achieve the overriding interest.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Confidential Documents, as used in and referred to in the summary judgment proceedings, be sealed. The court expressly finds that with respect to the Confidential Documents:

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

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

With respect to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the parties shall file the Motion for Summary Judgment, the opposition, and any reply briefs as well as all supporting documents publicly with the exception of the Confidential Documents and any references thereto which shall be redacted. The court does not need courtesy copies of the publicly filed documents.

The Parties shall also electronically file a sealed, unredacted version of the foregoing motion, opposition, and reply along with all supporting papers. The parties shall provide the court with a courtesy copy of the sealed, unredacted filings, which copies shall be labeled prominently, “Sealed By Order Of The Court On January 22, 2025.” The courtesy copy shall be delivered to the court in three ring binders, with side exhibit tabs.

The Parties have requested to redact non-party email addresses from the foregoing summary judgment filings. These addresses are unnecessary for consideration of the motion and can be redacted. No sealing order is necessary. The non-party email addresses may be redacted.

Absent further Order of the Court, no one is authorized to view the sealed Confidential Documents filed with the Court as part of the summary judgment proceedings, except for the following persons: the Court and its personnel, the Parties and their counsel of record, as well as any experts retained by counsel and subject to the protective order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e)(3).)

The refiling of any document does not affect the timeliness of any prior filing.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court