Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV03051, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03051    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 40

22STCV03051 Kovac Media Group, Inc dba Tenth Street. v. Benjamin Burnley, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.       Background

      This action arises from Defendants’ alleged breach of a contract to pay Plaintiff for commissions owed pursuant to an oral agreement for Plaintiff to provide management services to Defendant. Plaintiff alleges contract-related claims and a claim for unjust enrichment.

      Defendant moves to file its motion for summary judgment under seal. The motion seeks judgment in connection with Plaintiff’s appeal of a Labor Commission decision in favor of Defendants because Plaintiff unlawfully procured or negotiated engagements for Defendants in violation of the Talent Agencies Act.

      The controversy involved draft proposals and communications related to the negotiation of an agreement with Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. The proposals and communications include  confidential financial information and contract terms. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order designating various documents as “confidential.” The terms of the agreement are private and confidential.

      No opposition has been filed.

II.     Discussion

      Court records are presumed to be open. (Cal. Rules of Court, 2.550 subd. (c).) The burden is on the moving party to show compelling reasons for sealing records. (Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 317.) To support an order to seal records, the court must find that “(1) there is an overriding interest supporting sealing records; (2) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; (3) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest." (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 29; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 subd. (d).)

      An agreement not to disclose information can constitute an “overriding interest” where there is specific showing of serious injury. (McNair at 35–36 [“specificity is essential. [Citation.] Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.”].)

      The parties stipulated to a protective order to maintain the confidentiality of certain information, documents, and deposition transcripts. (Mot.  Ex. A.) The  stipulation permits limited disclosure to the court, the Labor Commission, the parties, and their attorneys of record, staff, court reporters, among other limited parties. (Id. ¶ 7.)

      Defendants have shown a substantial probability that Defendants and third parties will suffer prejudice absent redaction of any references the FPC/Live Nation Agreement, proposals, contract terms, financial information and documents related to the negotiation of that Agreement.

      However, the proposed order is broadly stated to seal the entire motion, not to redact certain confidential information. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on January 2, 2025, which contains specific redactions purportedly to protect the confidential financial information, negotiation documents, the FPC/Live Nation Agreement and documents related thereto.  

      Defendants are ordered to submit a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to the specific redactions made in the motion and related declarations.

      Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED to permit limited redactions of specific confidential information as reflected in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting declarations filed on January 2, 2025.