Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCV21546, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21546    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 86

TOPA INSURANCE GROUP, INC. v. GO MAPS, INC.

Case No. 22STCV21546

Hearing Date: December 14, 2022

[Tentative]       ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

Defendant, Go Maps, Inc., moves to seal financial documents attached to the Reply Declaration of Kevin Pomplun at Exhibit 4 (and all references to it). Defendant filed Pomplun’s reply declaration in connection with its surreply to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant filed the declaration conditionally under seal on August 18, 2022.

Defendant moves to seal material revealing its “core metrics, as well as financials,” sent to Plaintiff (through Lawrence Genalo) by email on February 15, 2022. (Pomplun Reply Dec., Ex. 4.) The attachment to the email reveals Defendant’s “financial information, including profits and losses.” (Landes Decl., ¶ 3.) The material has been redacted from the version of the declaration filed with the court.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil trials.” (In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575.) Orders to seal records in a civil proceeding implicate the First Amendment’s right of public access. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1778, 1212.)

“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.” (Cal. Rules 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

Plaintiff seeks to seal a single attachment to a declaration revealing Defendant’s financial information, including a profit and loss statement. Defendant explains the financial information it provided to Plaintiff is confidential and not publicly available. The financial material is not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in the proceeding. The validity of the financial material is not issue; the issue is whether and when, if at all, Defendant communicated the financial information to Plaintiff.

The information at issue is private business financial information about Defendant. Defendant is a non-public company. The financial information is not germane to the issues raised by Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction— the fact Defendant communicated the information to Plaintiff is relevant to the analysis. Requiring Defendant to release the financial information (including profit and loss statements) is unwarranted under the particular circumstances here where the underlying issues to be litigated do not turn on the information communicated.

Defendant’s privacy rights related to non-public financial information in this context overrides the public’s right to access to the information. Defendant’s privacy right supports sealing the financial information. The court cannot protect Defendant’s privacy rights without sealing the financial information.

The sealing proposed by Defendant is narrowly tailored. A sealing order would seal only private financial information. The court finds no less restrictive means exist to protect Defendant’s privacy interests in the material.

The court notes the motion to seal is unopposed.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant has demonstrated a sufficient factual basis for sealing the material in the attachment to the Pomplun reply declaration at Exhibit 4. The court finds Defendant has established the required grounds under CRC Rule 2.550, subdivision (d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 14, 2022                                                              ________________________________

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Hon. Mitchell Beckloff

                                                                                                                   Judge of the Superior Court