Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 20STCV38383, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 20STCV38383    Hearing Date: January 11, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Pierre Chraghchian’s unopposed motion to seal is continued to February 24, 2023.  Plaintiff is also ordered to submit a revised proposed order.

          Plaintiff Pierre Chraghchian (“Chraghchian”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order sealing Defendant Alexander Sardarian’s (“Sardarian”) (“Defendant”) to effectuate the terms of a global settlement between parties, to prevent harm to third-party business entities, and to avoid the disclosure of confidential information about the third-party business entities, including their financial and organizational statute and ongoing business, and avoid the information from being publicly available to competitors and customers of the business entities.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; CRC Rule 2.550 et seq.)  Plaintiff requests that the Court order the documents attached to Revised/Reduced Exhibit A or continue the hearing on the Motion to Seal to allow Plaintiff to submit a more detailed list of items to be sealed.  (Supplemental Brief, pg. 3, Revised/Reduced Exh. A.)

Motion to Seal Records

Plaintiff filed his operative complaint (“Complaint”) on October 6, 2020, related to the collection of a promissory note issued to Defendant.  Throughout proceedings, parties filed pleadings, motions, declarations, and exhibits that contained references to and information about various business ventures that Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, “Parties”) owned together and their pending business disputes, including Erickson International LLC; Marco Management LLC; Cartel Trading, Inc.; Concept One Distributing, Inc.; ASWF Ohio L.L.C.; and ASWF Australia Pty. Ltd., which are third-party business entities and did not participate in this action.  (Motion, pg. 3.)   The Parties participated in a global settlement in Nevada which resolved all disputes between them, including disputes related to the various business entities and the promissory note that was the subject of the instant action.  (Id. at pg. 4.)  As part of the settlement, Parties agreed that all court records that reference or relate to or mention the various third-party business entities must be sealed to avoid the disclosure of confidential information, including their financial and organizational status and ongoing business to avoid the information becoming publicly available to competitors and customers of the business entities.  (Id.; P-RJN, Exh. 1 ¶¶5, 12 & Exh. A.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 6, 2022.  Plaintiff’s first supplemental brief was filed with the court on November 7, 2022.  Plaintiff’s first supplemental brief was in violation of C.R.C. Rule 2.551(b)(2), which provides:

A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. Other parties must be served with only the public redacted version. If a party’s attorney but not the party has access to the record, only the party’s attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version.

(C.R.C. Rule 2.551(b)(2).)  Plaintiff’s first supplemental brief did not include proposed redactions.  Plaintiff filed a second supplemental brief on January 9, 2023, attaching the proposed redactions.  This filing did not provide the Court with sufficient time to review the brief and exhibits totaling 221 to determine if the motion complied with the rules of Court. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to submit a revised proposed order.

          Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is continued to February 24, 2023

Dated:  January ____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court