Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Hogan v. Miller Barondess, LLP", Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Roger T. Hogan, Hogan SRK, Inc., R&C Motor Corporation, HFP Ltd., Catherine Hogan, Stephen Hogan, Kyle R. Hogan, and Roger R. Hogan’s Motion to Seal Documents

Plaintiffs Roger T. Hogan, Hogan SRK, Inc., R&C Motor Corporation, HFP Ltd., Catherine Hogan, Stephen Hogan, Kyle R. Hogan, and Roger R. Hogan move to seal documents lodged conditionally under seal by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants’ petition to compel arbitration.  The court granted defendants Miller Barondess, LLP, Louis R. Miller, Amnon Z. Siegel, and Casey Sypek’s petition to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ causes of action on June 9, 2022.  See 6/9/22 Order.  For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to seal is denied.

A party requesting that a court record be filed under seal “must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.”  Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b)(1).  “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”  Id.

Plaintiffs assert that portions of plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the petition and the Roger T. Hogan Declaration and its exhibits contain attorney-client privileged information and other confidential, nonprivileged information.  Plaintiffs make no specific showing that each of the particular items plaintiffs seek to seal is privileged or otherwise confidential.  Furthermore, the conclusory Bradley Declaration filed with plaintiffs’ motion does not contain facts sufficient to justify the requested sealing, as required by California Rule of Court 2.551(b)(1).  The court therefore has no evidentiary basis on which to make the “express factual findings” required by California Rule of Court 2.550(d) to seal records.  See H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894 (“[A] reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns.  Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations.  The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how.  This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.”).

Defendants to give notice.