Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCP00257, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

On January 24, 2024, Petitioners, Grandma Investments, Ltd., Aloha Finance, Ltd., Bolt Ventures Ltd., FCA Capital Ltd., and Rocio Trading Corporation, filed a Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award against Respondent, RT Features U.S., LLC (“RT Features”). The Petition is redacted.

On January 25, 2024, Petitioners filed this Motion to Seal to File Portions of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Under Seal.

The motion was heard on March 14, 2024. The court continued the hearing for the motion because Petitioners did not file proof of service of the Motion. On the same day, Petitioners filed proof of service.

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.)

On December 4, 2023, The Honorable Marc Marmaro (Ret.), as arbitrator in the underlying arbitration proceedings, issued a Final Award and issued an order modifying the Final Award on January 8, 2024. Petitioners now move for an order to seal certain portions of its Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award and to lodge certain records under seal. In support, Petitioners point to a September 3, 2021 protective order signed by Judge Marmaro which provides, in relevant part, “[a]ll aspects of [the] Arbitration, including but not limited to any testimony, all documents, and the culminating Decision and Award, are, at minimum, designated ‘Confidential.’” (Sadat Decl., ¶ 3; Petition, Attachment 10(g), ¶ 1(c).) In observance of Petitioners’ obligation under the protective order, they have filed a partially redacted Petition and seek to file under seal certain exhibits in support of its Petition.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that there exists an overriding interest in the confidentiality of the foregoing documents relating to the contractual arbitration award, 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.

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 that no less restrictive means exists to achieve the overriding interest. Respondent, having been properly served with notice of this Motion and not filing an opposition, does not provide any argument to the contrary.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court