Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV01619, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 19SMCV01619    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: I

The case has moved beyond discovery and into substantive issues.  As such, the public’s right to access is more substantial and the weight on the public’s right to access is heavier in the balance.  Here, the court must determine two major things.  First, the nature and weight of the confidentiality asserted and second, the importance of the information to the court’s decision-making process.  The court must also consider whether the order requested is the narrowest that will protect the legitimate privacy right asserted.  Without having seen what will be the operative summary judgment pleading, the court cannot really assess these two things.  Normally, that would require supplemental briefing.  After all, the court has some doubt as to whether the names of the investors are all that critical to the motion or opposition, and if that is correct, the court might grant the motion in that respect.  But the court is not sure of that.  Defendants have already suggested that all of the investors were mere passive investors although that was at least arguably not the case.  As to the settlement, the court will need to better understand what the nature of the privacy right is other than that the parties would like to keep the document confidential (and the court is not even sure of that, as not all of the parties to the settlement have weighed in on the motion).  Further, the settlement and its terms seem a bit more germane to the motion.  The court could be of a mind to deny that aspect of the request.  The court also notes that it has seen at least some evidence of over-designation by the parties in the past, and that requires a deeper dive by the court than might otherwise be the case.

For now, however, the motion for which these papers were filed has been withdrawn.  Because the court will not ever rule on the withdrawn motion, the motion to seal will be GRANTED on the theory that the public’s interest in knowing the information driving the court’s decision is lessened when the court is making no decision.  However, the court is well aware that the motion is coming back in a new form.  If any party wants to file any supporting or opposing papers as to that motion under seal, a more robust showing will need to be made.