Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 20STCP01863 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 20STCP01863, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Respondents, Wonderful Growers Cooperative (WGC), Wonderful Almond Cooperative (WAC), Cal Pure Produce Inc. (Cal Pure), The Wonderful Company LLC (TWC), Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC (WP&A), have moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. The motion is pending before this court for hearing today.

In conjunction with the motion for summary judgment, Respondents filed a motion to seal certain exhibits they submitted to the court for consideration. Petitioners, Maricopa Orchards, LLC; Kamm Pistachios, LLC; Derrick Pistachios, LLC; Three Rocks Pistachios, LLC; 104 Pistachios, LLC; ACDF, LLC; Granville Farms, LLC; Sommerville Farms, LLC; Tuscan Farms, LLC; Waterford Farms, LLC; Cantua Orchards, LLC; and Sageberry Farms, LLC, opposes the motion to seal.

“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.” (California Rules of Court [CRC], Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).)

The court must make express findings to support sealing under CRC, Rule 2.550. Specifically, CRC, Rule 2.550, subdivision (d) provides:

“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds that:

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

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

1. Exhibit A to the Hohmann MSJ Declaration, which includes samples of documents WGC has produced in this case, including: WGC’s Trial Balance - Balance Sheet for tax year ending 2011; WGC’s Trial Balance – Income Statement for tax year ending 2011; WGC’s Patronage vs. Non Patronage-Pistachios for tax year ending 2011; and WGC’s Pistachio Distribution Allocation for tax year ending 2011;

2. Exhibit B to the Hohmann MSJ Declaration, which includes samples of documents WAC has produced in this case, including: WAC’s Trial Balance - Balance Sheet for tax year ending 2017; WAC’s Trial Balance – Income Statement for tax year ending 2017; WAC’s Patronage vs. Non Patronage-Almonds for tax year ending 2017; and WAC’s Almond Distribution Allocation for tax year ending 2017; and

3. Exhibit C to the Hohmann MSJ Declaration, which includes samples of documents Cal Pure has produced in this case, including: Cal Pure’s Balance Sheet for tax year ending 2016; Cal Pure’s Profit and Loss for tax year ending 2016; Cal Pure’s Patronage vs. Non Patronage-Almonds for tax year ending 2016; Cal Pure’s Patronage vs. Non Patronage-Pistachios for tax year ending 2016; Cal Pure’s Distribution Allocation-Almonds for tax year ending 2016; and Cal Pure’s Distribution Allocation-Pistachios for tax year ending 2016.

In support of their sealing motion, Respondents argue the exhibits contain highly sensitive financial information. (Hohmann Sealing Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) More specifically, the Chief Financial Officer of Respondents attests the subject documents “are proprietary documents compiled in the court and conduct of WGC’s, WAC’s, and Cal Pure’s business.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) He explains Respondents are “privately-held entities” and the subject documents are “sensitive financial documents” that are “not available to the general public.” (Ibid.) Respondents’ Chief Financial Officer reports Respondents “take significant measures to ensure these documents and information are not disseminated outside the companies.” (Ibid.)

The court finds the evidence submitted by Respondents to support their request to seal the records inadequate. That is, the Chief Financial Officer’s declaration is little more than a series of conclusory, boilerplate statements offered in support of sealing.

The Chief Financial Officer’s declaration—which does not even generally specify the nature of the sensitive material at issue in each of the documents—fails to articulate why there is a “substantial probability” of prejudice if the specific records are not sealed. That Respondents designated certain documents confidential for purposes of its protective order is not determinative. Finally, on this evidence, the court is unable to find sealing all portions of the documents is narrowly tailored. For example, would Respondents’ privacy interests in its financial information be compromised if the account numbers or description columns in Exhibits A, B and C to the Declaration of Michael Hohmann in Support of Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment be prejudiced?

The court cannot find why all the information sought to be sealed will result in a substantial probability of competitive harm or personal injury if the documents are not sealed and in their entirety. Respondents have not met their burden under CRC, Rule 2.550. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

[Additionally, the court has reviewed Respondents’ motion to seal filed on April 7, 2023 set for hearing on May 5, 2023 seeking to seal certain records in Petitioners’ opposition to the summary judgment motion.[1] It is unclear how the court can proceed with the summary judgment motion today given that Respondents have requested certain documents be sealed and the motion is not scheduled to be heard until May 5, 2023. A cursory review of the April 7 sealing motion suggests it suffers from the same evidentiary defects.]

Based on the foregoing, the motion to seal is denied. Pursuant to CRC, Rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(6), Respondents shall advise whether the lodged record may be filed unsealed. If not, the court will return the lodged record to Respondents.

The court will post a tentative decision for the motion for summary judgment if Respondents elect to proceed with unsealed records in its moving papers as well as the opposition papers.

[1] The motion seeks to seal the following exhibits relevant to the motion for summary judgment: 1. Exhibit A to the Hsiao MSJ Declaration includes a document produced Respondent The Wonderful Company LLC in this case, specifically a list of the members and voting shares for WGC, Cal Pure and Respondent Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC; 2. Exhibit C to the Hsiao MSJ Declaration includes documents Cal Pure produced in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2010 through 2012 general ledger; and 3. Exhibit E to the Hsiao MSJ Declaration includes documents Cal Pure produced in this case, specifically Cal Pure’s 2010 general ledger; 4. Paragraph 6, lines 13-15 to the Thompson Declaration includes reference to information from WGC’s general ledger and cites to Exhibit D to the Hsiao Declaration; 5. Paragraph 10, lines 18-20 to the Thompson Declaration includes reference to information from WGC’s general ledger and cites to Exhibit C to the Hsiao Declaration; 6. Paragraph 13, lines 14-19 to the Thompson Declaration includes reference to information from WGC’s general ledger and cites to Exhibits D and E to the Hsiao Declaration; and 7. Paragraph 14, lines 22-23 to the Thompson Declaration includes reference to information from WGC’s general ledger and cites to Exhibit E.