Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 19STCV30463, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 19STCV30463 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: April 15, 2024
Moving
Party: Defendant Devoto-Wade LLC dba
Golden State Cider
Responding
Party: None.
Motion
to Seal
The Court
considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.
Background
On
January 13, 2023, Plaintiff Ben Myerson Candy Co., Inc. dba Wine Warehouse
(“Plaintiff”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against
Defendant Devoto-Wade LLC dba Golden State Cider (“Defendant”), and DOES 1-10,
inclusive for: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Count in Quantum Meruit.
On December 13,
2023, proof of service was filed.
On January 2,
2024, Defendant filed this instant Motion to Seal. No opposition has been
filed.
Legal
Standard
Pursuant
to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, “A party requesting that a record be
filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the
record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a
declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC, rule
2.551, subd. (b)(1).) “A copy of the motion or application must be served on
all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise,
any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must
be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a
redacted version.” (CRC, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(2).)
Finally, “[t]he
party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court
under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for
not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i).
Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will
be conditionally under seal.” (CRC, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(4).)
Discussion
Defendant Devoto-Wade LLC dba Golden
State Cider (“Defendant”) moves for an order sealing certain materials
submitted by Defendant in connection with Golden State Cider’s Motion to
Preclude Introduction of Wine Warehouse’s Trial Exhibits 897 and 898 at trial. Defendant
argues the information sought to be sealed consists of of information
reflecting or derived from Golden State Cider’s documents produced in discovery
that were designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the parties’ Protective
Order and/or were provided to Golden State Cider with an expectation that
Golden State Cider would seek to seal the records. Furthermore, Defendant
contends it has an overriding interest in the sealing of this information to
protect its private and competitively sensitive information and that of
relevant third-parties, which overrides the public interest in access.
Moreover, Defendant asserts the documents were also previously ordered sealed
or contain information similar in nature to documents and information that the
Court ordered sealed on May 30, 2023. (May 30, 2023 Order re: Motions to Seal
and Motion to Disqualify Counsel at 15-18.)
Specifically,
Defendant seeks to seal information contained within two exhibits: (1) Exhibit 1
to the Declaration of Ronald J. Fisher in Support of Motion to Preclude
Introduction of Wine Warehouse Trial Exhibit Nos. 897 & 898 at Trial (full
document - Email thread bearing the bates range GSC0055910 – GSC0055912); and (2)
Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Ronald J. Fisher in Support of Motion to Preclude
Introduction of Wine Warehouse Trial Exhibit Nos. 897 & 898 at Trial (full
document- Email thread bearing the bates range GSC0055913 – GSC0055915).
Additionally,
Defendant argues the two emails it seeks to seal contain confidential
information and negotiation strategies that were exchanged between the members
and partners of Defendant, and confidential information requested and exchanged
between counsel for Defendant and counsel for Sonoma Craft for purposes of
completing the Golden State Cider transaction. (See, e.g., 5/16/23 Decl. of
Chris Lacey ¶ 4.)Defendant also argues revealing such confidential and
sensitive materials to the public would put Defendant at a competitive
disadvantage if the company sought to acquire or invest in a new business
venture, because the information is not something Defendant would otherwise
reveal during the typical negotiation process. (Id. ¶ 6.) Likewise,
Defendant contends it takes extensive steps to protect its confidential
information, including by restricting access to specific individuals and
ensuring the company has adequate cybersecurity. (Id.
¶ 7.) Lastly, Defendant asserts the
sealing motion is narrowly tailored and reasonable.
The Court finds
that Defendant’s motion is narrowly tailored and reasonable. Defendant only
seeks to seal information that have either already been subject to seal and/or
are similarly in nature. Furthermore, Defendant only seeks to seal two exhibits,
which is a relatively low quantity of documents. Defendant also demonstrates
the information it seeks to seal contain confidential or highly confidential
information and that revealing such information to the public would put it at a
disadvantage against its competitors. Finally, Defendant shows that the
information it seeks to protect under seal is not readily shared with
competitors, business partners, or even certain individuals that work for
Defendant.
Therefore, the
motion to seal is GRANTED.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: April 15, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court