Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV30368, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV30368    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Seal Portions of [California Fueling, LLC’s] Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine Nos. 2 and 3

Moving Party:  Plaintiff California Fueling, LLC

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:         Motion to Seal Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3

Moving Party:  Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation, George Sturges, A Transport Corporation, and Best Energy Holdings, LLC

Resp. Party:    None

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 is GRANTED.

        Defendants’ Motion to Seal Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff California Fueling, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation and George Sturges on causes of action of breach of contract, fraud, and interference with prospective economic advantage.

On November 1, 2021, Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation and George Sturges filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On November 15, 2021, Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation and George Sturges filed their First Amended Answer to the Complaint.

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff amended its Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with A Transport Corporation.

On June 6, 2022, Defendant A Transport Corporation filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff amended its Complaint to substitute Doe 2 with Best Energy Holdings, LLC.

On July 1, 2022, Defendant Best Energy Holdings, LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint.

        On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

        On April 26, 2023, Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation, George Sturges, A Transport Corporation, and Best Energy Holdings, LLC (“Defendants”) filed their Motion to Seal Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3. Defendants concurrently filed: (1) Notice of Lodging Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 2 & 3 Conditionally under Seal; (2) Declaration of George Sturges; and (3) Proposed Order.

        No oppositions have been filed.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

A party that requests that a record or portion of a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing it. The motion must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1); Savaglio v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 597-601.) All parties that have appeared in the case must be served with a copy of the motion or application. Unless the judge orders otherwise, a party that already possesses copies of the records to be sealed must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).)

The moving party must lodge the record with the court in a separate envelope when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or it has been lodged previously. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4) and (d).) The lodged record is conditionally under seal pending the judge's determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d), a judge may order that a record be filed under seal only if the judge expressly finds facts that establish all the following:

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

(2)       The overriding interest supports sealing the record. 

(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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must weigh the competing interests and concerns. This process necessitates (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public disclosure, (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) Therefore, to prevail on his or her motion, the moving party must present a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and the specific reasons for withholding them. (Id. at p. 904.)

The California Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment provides “a right of access to ordinary civil trial and proceedings.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212.) The court further noted its belief that “the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system.” (Id., at 1210.) There is a presumption of openness in civil court proceedings. (Id., at 1217.) This presumption may apply to seemingly private proceedings. (Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 135 Cal. App.4th 1045, 1052 (divorce proceedings).) Therefore, it is up to this Court to determine if that presumption has been overcome.

Courts must find compelling reasons, prejudice absent sealing and the lack of less-restrictive means, before ordering filed documents sealed. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1246; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209 n. 25; Champion v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 777, 787.) A compelling reason could include to protect confidential trade secrets, which “have been recognized as a constitutionally protected intangible property interest.” (DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 878, internal citations omitted.)

A proposed sealing must be narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, such as by sealing portions of pleadings or redacting text. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052, 1070.) An application to seal must be accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(b)(1).)

A “contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest” is sufficient to justify sealing the requested documents so long as the moving party establishes that disclosure of the information will result in substantial prejudice. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1283-1284.)

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff requests that portions of its Opposition to Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 be sealed, and Defendants request that portions of their Replies to these Motions in Limine be sealed. The respective Motions to Seal make arguments regarding each of the required findings.

Regarding the items the Parties respectively request to be sealed, the Court finds: (1) that there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) that the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and (5) that no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. 

        The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine Nos. 2 and 3.

        The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Seal Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 is GRANTED.

        Defendants’ Motion to Seal Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 is GRANTED.