Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV01829, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01829    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Sophia Soli v. Polaris Industries, Inc., et al. 

Polaris Industries Inc.’s Motion to Seal re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Polaris Industries Inc.’s motion to seal re: Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication. The unredacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 20 attached to the declarations of Jeremy Cloyd in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication, the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for summary adjudication, and the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the motion for summary adjudication, are hereby sealed. Only the Court and counsel for the parties may view the unredacted versions of these documents. The redacted versions of these documents filed on February 13 and 14, 2025, will remain on file and the public record. 

             Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a products liability action. On November 15, 2022, plaintiff Sophia Soli (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris), Seidner Enterprises, LLC (Seidner) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for strict products liability and negligence. 

On February 26, 2025, Polaris moved to seal portions of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.[1] On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On March 19, 2025, Polaris replied. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

            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, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION 

Summary of Arguments 

Polaris moves to seal portions of Aaron Deckard’s and Donald Zeck’s deposition transcripts and references to the same in Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary adjudication. Polaris indicates that Plaintiff’s motion attached portions of those deposition transcripts and references them in the memorandum of points and authorities. Polaris notes that the Court already found Plaintiff is entitled to preserve the confidential information stated in those portions of those deposition transcripts in a prior ruling. Polaris contends the information to which Mr. Deckard and Mr. Zeck testified relates to trade secrets, and that the designated information has independent economic value related to the development, design, and testing for the subject vehicle, as well as the identification, gathering, and analysis of data for Polaris business purposes. 

Polaris contends it undertakes significant efforts to maintain the secrecy of the designated information, and that the information in the aforementioned transcripts related to Polaris’ design, development, testing, and filed investigations is not generally known to the public or Polaris’ competitors, and such information is restricted even within Polaris itself to a very limited number of persons on a need-to-know basis. Polaris then contends that even if it is not a trade secret, the information is independently protected as confidential research, development, or commercial information, which is also entitled to protection from unregulated disclosure. Polaris further contends there is no right of public access to these deposition transcripts, nor is there any public interest warranting disclosure of the same, and that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored with no less restrictive means available to achieve the overriding interest. 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends the First Amendment establishes a presumptive right to public access to court records that are overcome only in the rarest circumstances. Plaintiff contends Polaris’ motion must be denied because Polaris did not identify its alleged trade secrets purportedly at issue per Evidence Code section 1061. Plaintiff contends the records Polaris seeks to seal relate to the subject vehicle’s door, compatibility with aftermarket parts, and safety history. Plaintiff contends Polaris has not identified any trade secret in the subject vehicle’s door, as the vehicle is approximately ten years old, Polaris has not sold a new version since 2021, and design drawings are publicly available. Plaintiff contends Polaris is improperly attempting to protect all design features as a trade secret. 

Plaintiff contends Polaris has not identified any trade secret in the subject vehicle’s compatibility with aftermarket parts, as such information is no secret to the offroading industry. Plaintiff references a website wherein Defendant Seidner purportedly touts its ability to customize vehicles of the same make and model as the subject vehicle, and that Seidner has testified it was authorized to make such modifications. Plaintiff then contends Polaris has not identified any trade secret relating to investigation methods and safety history, and that investigation methods are not a trade secret absent some showing of a unique methodology unknown to others. Plaintiff contends Polaris’ investigation methods are not secret because Polaris has not demonstrated its methods are unique and because Polaris has publicly touted its methods to help sell products. Plaintiff also contends safety history is not a trade secret. 

Analysis 

            The Court finds Polaris’ arguments persuasive. The parties previously entered into a protective order regarding the confidentiality of certain documents. (Stipulation and Order (12/11/23).) The Court granted Polaris’ prior motion to preserve the confidential status of portions of Aaron Deckard’s and Donald Zeck’s deposition transcripts per the protective order. (Order re Tentative Ruling (11/5/24).) Polaris seeks only to keep those same portions of the deposition transcripts confidential for purposes of the motion for summary adjudication. (See Amended Motion, 4:26-28.) Plaintiff’s opposition does not dispute that the same portions of the deposition transcripts are at issue. (See generally, Opp.; D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Evidence Code section 1061 and Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Stadish) are unavailing. Although Stadish held that Evidence Code section 1061 applies in civil proceedings in addition to criminal proceedings, that case was decided in the context of a motion for a protective order. (Id. at pp. 1144-1145.) As noted above, the parties in this case have already agreed to a protective order and the Court already ruled that portions of the deposition transcripts are subject to confidentiality under the protective order. (Stipulation and Order (12/11/23); Order re Tentative Ruling (11/5/24).) Therefore, whether Polaris complied with the requirements of Evidence Code section 1061 is irrelevant. Also, even if section 1061 did apply, it is unclear to the Court why these portions of deposition transcripts would not also enjoy the protections of the parties’ protective order in connection with Plaintiff’s summary adjudication motion. 

Furthermore, the Court reiterates from its prior order that the information contained in the depositions of Mr. Deckard and Mr. Zeck implicates or at least potentially implicates Polaris’ confidential trade secret information, and that the public disclosure of such information could harm Polaris’ business interests. (Order re Tentative Ruling (11/5/24).) It is also again unclear to the Court what benefit public disclosure of this information will provide to Plaintiff’s case, as Plaintiff already has this information. (Order re Tentative Ruling (11/5/24).) 

            Given the Court’s prior finding that this information is subject to a protective order, the Court finds here that Polaris has an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record which supports sealing the record, and a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. (Order re Tentative Ruling (11/5/24); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subds. (e)(1)-(e)(3).) The Court further finds that the portions sought to be sealed are narrowly tailored, and that no less restrictive means are available to achieve Polaris’ overriding interest. (See Cloyd Decls., Exs. 2, 20 (2/14/25) [redacted versions]; Separate Statement (2/14/25) [redacted version]; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (2/14/25) [redacted version]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subds. (e)(4)-(e)(5).) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Polaris Industries Inc.’s motion to seal re: Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication. The unredacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 20 attached to the declarations of Jeremy Cloyd in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication, the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for summary adjudication, and the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the motion for summary adjudication, are hereby sealed. Only the Court and counsel for the parties may view the unredacted versions of these documents. The redacted versions of these documents filed on February 13 and 14, 2025, will remain on file and the public record. 

             Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.