Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2017-00911522, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter has been changed to 8:30 A.M.

Motion to Seal

Defendant Christian Mack’s motion to seal records is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant Christian Mack moves to seal the court docket and the Complaint in this matter.

California recognizes a constitutional right of access to certain court documents grounded in the First Amendment. (See Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.) “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

A request to seal must be directed at specific material in the record, specifically identify that material, demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the material and a substantial probability the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing, and be supported by declarations setting forth specific facts in support of the request. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d)-(e), 2.551(a)-(b); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

To grant a sealing order, the court must find “(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 Association (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 29; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) 

Although Defendant Mack asserts the existence of “proprietary and confidential information,” including “employment terms and purchasing terms” in the Complaint, Defendant Mack has not specifically identified the information in the Complaint that is proprietary and confidential and creates the overriding interest supporting sealing.

Moreover, the record before the court does not support Defendant Mack’s contention that sealing the entirety of the court docket and the Complaint is the least restrictive means of preserving Defendant Mack’s interests. For example, it may be possible to redact and seal only portions of the court docket or Complaint rather than the entirety.

Although, Defendant Mack has not provided sufficient facts to permit the court to issue the sealing order requested pursuant to Rule 2.550(d), Defendant Mack may be able to amend the motion to seal. The court therefore denies the motion without prejudice.

The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.