Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV03553, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03553    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: I

The court GRANTS the motion to seal as follows:

Joshi Declaration.  Page 2 line 2 from the fourth word to the end of the parenthetical.  Page 2 lines 14 from after “Plaintiffs” to line 15 at the end of the sentence.  Exhibit A, page 1, the two lines above the word “Best.”  Exhibit A page 2 the two paragraphs above the word “Best.”  Exhibit B, page 1, the paragraphs after the list of names, each beginning with the word “Retainer.”  Exhibit B page 3, the paragraph beginning with the word “Retainer” and the specific dollar amounts in the bullet points.  Exhibit B page 4, the percentage set forth in the paragraph starting “I believe” and later the percentage in the paragraph starting with “After careful.”  Exhibit B page 5 the second “-“ point and the specific numbers and percentages in the fourth “-“ point.  Exhibit B page 6, the line after “US Tour Retainer.”  Exhibit C after the first two rows and for the remainder of the chart.  The court will discuss whether the general terms and conditions are confidential.  The court will discuss exhibits E, F, and G.  The court is not sure why these form agreements are truly confidential, as they look relatively standard at first glance and the declaration, although now from a person who may have a proper foundation, includes only boilerplate language.  As to the other parts of the document that Joshi claims are confidential but that were not specified in the motion, they may be refiled without the additional information in either the public or the sealed versions, as Joshi contends that the information there in question is irrelevant to the matters before the court and therefore the court need not consider it.

Gugliotta Declaration.  Paragraph 6, page 4, lines 4-5, from the word “of” to the end of the sentence. 

Gordon Declaration.  Paragraph 15, page 4, line 28 after the word “from” to the end of the second parenthetical.  (The remainder of the requested redaction in that paragraph is already public from the supplemental declaration.)  The remaining portions of the Gordon declaration not specified in the motion are alleged to be confidential but irrelevant to the court’s consideration.  Thus, the Gordon declaration may be re-filed with those items redacted from both the public and the sealed documents.

This order is based on the supplemental Joshi declaration and a review of the documents.  The Joshi declaration was helpful, although from time to time in devolved into boilerplate assertions without explanation.  Even so, in reviewing the specific items, the items themselves coupled with the Joshi declaration led the court to the conclusions above.  The court has conducted the required weighing process and believes that the redacted information is in the nature of confidential competitive information, the public dissemination of which would create a significant competitive disadvantage to defendants.  The redactions are the minimal redactions that can be made to protect that interest, which the court finds to be overriding.  On balance, the court believes that the need to keep that information confidential outweighs the public’s interest in being able to see that information.  The court also notes that, while the redacted information is relevant to the court’s decision, the specifics therein are not critical to the court’s decision.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as set forth above.

This order is without prejudice to the court’s reconsideration de novo if there is a request to unseal by a member of the public.  If that occurs, the court will look at the specifics in such a motion.  Right now, the motion is unopposed and therefore the court might be mis-understanding some of the potentially public import of the redactions, and that might be pointed out in a subsequent motion.  If that occurs, the court will consider the question anew.