Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV04430, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04430    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 17

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO SEAL

Plaintiff the State of California filed this action against Defendants Anthony J. Haworth (Haworth) and related entities AwesomeCalls, Inc. (AC), AwesomeCallsTrading, Inc. (ACT), AwesomeCalls LLC (ACL) (together AwesomeCalls) for allegedly false or misleading advertisements regarding Haworth’s skill trading stocks and selling investment advice without a valid certificate.  

Plaintiff moved for summary adjudication as to causes of action one and two.  Defendants moved for summary judgment.  The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.  On September 20, 2023 the parties jointly requested a briefing schedule regarding the amount of penalties “awarded to the People pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Summary Adjudication.”  (Sept. 20, 2023 Joint Status Report at p. 2:5-11.)  Plaintiff filed an Initial Brief re: Penalties on November 20, 2023.  On March 19, 2024 Defendants filed an Application to Seal Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to the Declaration of Scott E. Turguson filed in support of the Initial Brief. 

California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) requires a court to “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) [which] 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.” 

Tax returns are usually subject to a privilege and are not produced in discovery.  Defendants have an overriding interest in the privacy of sensitive personal financial information in the tax returns, which would be prejudiced by leaving the returns in the public record.  The proposed sealing is narrowed to the returns.  The volume of sensitive information in the tax returns makes redaction infeasible and, as Defendants urge, “would effectively remove the relevant information that the Plaintiff found necessary to show the Court” in the first place.  (Application, p. 3.)  Thus, all factors for sealing are established. 

The Motion to Seal is GRANTED.  The moving party is to give notice.