Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV37014, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 5, 2022

Case Name: Triton Pacific Capital Partners, LLC v. Cenegenics, LLC

Case No.: 18STCV03423

Matter: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Plaintiff Triton Pacific Capital Partners, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Triton Pacific Capital Partners, LLC seeks to seal the following documents it has filed: (1) Motion to Amend Judgment to Name John E. Adams and Kristy Berry as Judgment Debtors; (2) Motion to Amend Judgment to Name BestLife Holdings, Inc. as Judgment Debtor; (3) Declaration of Armen Manasserian in Support of Motions to Amend Judgment; (4) Declaration of Dr. Barbara C. Luna in Support of Motions to Amend Judgment.

Plaintiff contends that its “Motions to Amend Judgment and supporting exhibits comprise Confidential and Highly Confidential materials reflecting the finances, assets, liabilities, employees, owners, internal communications, and other confidential information of Cenegenics, BestLife, other private companies, and various individuals.” 

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to public review.  (Cal. Rules of Court 2.550(c); see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1) [“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business”].)  “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.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)

Here, sealing is warranted because (a) the documents at issue contain sensitive financial and proprietary information subject to a protective order, which supports sealing the record; (b) if not sealed, the disclosure of such information could cause harm; (c) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored because it only relates to exhibits subject to protective order and select portions of briefing relying on such exhibits; and (d) it is not apparent how confidentiality can be maintained without a sealing order.  

In sum, the Motion to Seal is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.