Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 20STCP01863, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCP01863 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: 86
MARICOPA
ORCHARDS, LLC v. WONDERFUL GROWERS COOPERATIVE
Case Number: 20STCP01863
Hearing Date: May 5, 2023
[Tentative] ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO SEAL
Respondents, Wonderful Growers Cooperative (WGC), Wonderful Almond
Cooperative (WAC), Cal Pure Produce Inc. (Cal Pure), The
Wonderful Company LLC (TWC), and Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC
(WP&A), move to seal the exhibits to the Declaration of Peter Hsiao filed
in support of Petitioners’ opening brief for writ of mandate and complaint, certain
paragraphs in the Declaration of Susan K. Thompson filed in support of Petitioners’
opening brief for writ of mandate and the exhibits to the Declaration of Peter
Hsiao in support of Petitioners opposition to Respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
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, oppose the motion to seal.
As a preliminary matter, the court has already ruled on—and
denied—the motion to seal to the extent it seeks to seal certain documents and
exhibits in opposition to Respondents’ motion for summary Judgment. As such, the
court’s decision here is limited to the documents submitted by Petitioners in
support of their opening brief.
The motion to seal is denied.
Petitioners shall file an unredacted version of their opening
brief (filed March 17, 2023), an unredacted version of the Hsiao declaration
(filed March 17, 2023) and an unredacted version of the Thompson declaration
(filed March 17, 2023) forthwith. Petitioners did not file the documents conditionally
under seal such that the unsealed documents may now publicly be filed.
Respondents shall address whether they intend to file a motion to
seal the reply declarations of Hsiao (filed May 2, 2023) and Thompson (filed
May 2, 2023) and/or Petitioners’ reply brief and evidentiary objections. If
not, Petitioners are ordered to file unredacted versions of the documents.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“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;
(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.”
ANALYSIS
Respondents move to seal the following exhibits:
1.
Hsiao declaration in support of Petitioners’ opening brief:
a.
Exhibit A to the Hsiao 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.
b.
Exhibit C to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents Cal Pure
produced in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2019 general ledger.
c.
Exhibit D to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents WGC produced
in this case, specifically WGC’s Trial Balance – Income Statement for tax year
ending 2015.
d.
Exhibit E to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents Cal Pure
produced in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2010-2012 general ledger.
e.
Exhibit F to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents WGC produced
in this case, specifically WGC’s Financial Statements for December 31, 2018 and
2017 and Independent Auditor’s Report thereon
f.
Exhibit G to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents WAC produced
in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2014-2021 general ledger.
g.
Exhibit H to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents WGC produced
in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2017-2021 general ledger.
h.
Exhibit I to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents Cal Pure
produced in this case, specifically the Amended and Restated Membership and
Marketing Agreement between Cal Pure and WGC, dated August 1, 2014.
i.
Exhibit J to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents WGC has
produced in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2010-2016 general ledger.
j.
Exhibit K to the Hsiao Declaration includes documents Cal Pure has
produced in this case, specifically excerpts from its 2021 general ledger.
2.
Thompson declaration in support of Petitioners’ opening brief:
a.
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.
b.
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.
c.
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
d.
Paragraph 14, lines 22-23 to the Thompson Declaration includes
reference to information from WGC’s general ledger and cites to Exhibit E to
the Hsiao Declaration.
In support of their sealing motion, Respondents argue the material
sought to be sealed contains highly sensitive financial information. (Hohmann
Sealing Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Specifically, Hohmann, as Respondents’ Chief Financial
Officer, represents the subject documents “are proprietary documents compiled
in the course and conduct of WGC’s WAC’s and Cal Pure’s business.” (Id.,
¶ 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.) Hohmann states Respondents “take significant
measures to ensure these documents and information are not disseminated outside
the companies.” (Ibid.) Hohmann then concludes “[i]f this competitively
sensitive information were made public, WGC’s, WAC’s, and Cal Pure’s
competitors would be able to access this information and gain leverage which
could be used against them, thereby gaining an unfair advantage.” (Id.,
¶ 5.)
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
contains conclusory, boilerplate statements to justify the sealing request.
The Hohmann declaration—which does not even specifically identify
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. Respondents’ evidence is generalized and
nonspecific. Further, that certain records were designated confidential by Respondents
in the context of its protective order is not determinative.
Respondents have presented only
conclusory evidence of prejudice resulting from public disclosure of the
subject documents. That is, there is no evidence before the court demonstrating
how the specific information, if not sealed, will likely result in some harm,
competitive or otherwise, to Respondents.
[The court notes on April 14, 2023
the court found this same evidence insufficient to seal documents and no new
evidence has been submitted in support of Respondents’ request to seal.]
Respondents have not met their
burden of establishing the materials should be sealed.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion to seal is denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
May 5, 2023 ________________________________
Hon. Mitchell
Beckloff
Judge of the
Superior Court