Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2019-01086418, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Seal

The Motion by Plaintiff Apriem Advisors and Defendant William Pugh to seal portions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of their stipulated injunction is GRANTED.

A record cannot be filed under seal without a court order.  CRC 2.551(a).  To seal a record, the moving party must file a motion for such relief, along with a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.  CRC 2.551(b)(1).)  The motion must be served on all parties, and unless the court orders otherwise, a complete copy of the document must be served on all other parties that already possess copies, along with the redacted version.  CRC 2.551(b)(2).  The moving party must lodge a complete copy of the document, marked “Conditionally Under Seal,” with a cover sheet stating the case info and that the enclosed record is subject to a pending Motion to Seal.  CRC 2.551(d). 

To grant a motion to seal, the court must expressly find that:

(1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records;

(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.

CRC 2.550(d); McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 974, 988. 

Here, Plaintiff and Pugh have entered into a confidential stipulated injunction barring Pugh’s solicitation of certain clients.  They seek to have the names of these clients under seal, both to protect their value and to protect the privacy rights of those individuals.  [Moon Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.]  The “names and identities [are] not known to the general public, including competitor financial services firms [and] would be very valuable to competitors because this information would identify high net worth clients who generate significant revenue and who have demonstrated a need and desire for a heightened level of financial service.”  [Id., ¶¶ 3-4.]

Plaintiff and Pugh have now shown an overriding interest and have tailored their request to seal just those parts of the stipulated injunction that involve that interest.

The court thus finds that:

(i)           an overriding privacy interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the information;

(ii)          the overriding interest supports sealing the records;

(iii)         a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(iv)        the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.