Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 30-2021-01212035, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Seal
Plaintiff seeks to seal the entirety of the following documents that were filed in support of his Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs:
1. Exhibit 2, Morgan & Morgan’s Timesheets and Expense Summary to the ROA 162, Yanchunis Declaration;
2. Exhibit 2, Robinson Calcagnie, Inc.’s Timesheets and Expense Summary to the ROA 161 Robinson Declaration; and
3. Exhibit 1, Angeion Group, LLC’s Proposal to the ROA 160, Unredacted Chumley Declaration.
The California Supreme Court recognizes a “First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court as a basis for adjudication.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208, fn. 25; see Cal. R. Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 2.551(b)(1).)
To grant a motion to seal, the court must expressly find that: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 2.550(d); McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)
Regarding the Timesheets and Expense Summary, Plaintiff asserts that the “descriptions of work performed on the case are confidential and proprietary information relating to how the firm litigates class action data breach cases” and that a “breach of this information could potentially cause the firm harm.” ROA 157, Robinson Decl., ¶¶4 and 6.
Similarly, Plaintiff contends that Angeion’s Proposal is “confidential and proprietary information relating to how Angeion Group, LLC bills for its services in class action data breach cases” and that “this information could potentially cause harm from third parties especially those in competition with Angeion”. ROA 157, Robinson Decl., ¶¶7-8.
Plaintiff argues there is no less restrictive means of protecting counsel’s and Angeion’s privacy and proprietary interests.
The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has not identified any specific information in any of the Exhibits that is proprietary or privileged. Plaintiff has not shown an overriding interest that overcomes the right to public access, let alone that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. Additionally, the request is overbroad and not narrowly tailored since the Motion seeks to seal the entirety of each of the Exhibits based on vague and conclusory assertions of confidential and proprietary information.
The motion is thus DENIED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Motion for Final Approval
Having considered all papers filed in support of the Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, the following issues need to be addressed at the hearing hereon.
1. Have the final totals of the Tier 2 Claims been determined? If so, Plaintiff should provide updated amounts.
2. Why should the fee splitting arrangement between plaintiff's counsel be left to be resolved "in their sole discretion to be exercised reasonably as provided for in paragraph 17 of the proposed order?
3. The proposed order filed July 7, 2023 continues to provide for the dismissal of the action with prejudice. See paragraph 3. As previously addressed, this is prohibited under CRC Rule 3.769(h). The proposed Order should also remove "dismissal of claims" from the heading for Section IV.
4. Section V, paragraph 17 should include the disbursement to the Settlement Administrator.
5. The proposed Order should include a provision specifying how notice of the judgment is to be provided. (Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.771(b).)
6. The proposed Order should include a date for the final accounting hearing and the deadline for the final accounting report. Counsel shall submit a final report at least 10 days prior to that conference regarding the status of the settlement administration. The Court holds final accounting hearing on Fridays at 9:00 am. The final accounting should occur after the deadline for class members to cash their checks. The final report must include all information necessary for the Court to determine the total amount actually paid to class members and any amounts tendered to the cy pres recipients, Consumer Watchdog and Veterans Legal Institute.
If these issues are addressed to the Court’s satisfaction, the Court is inclined to GRANT final approval as follows:
· $ 1,000.00 for Plaintiff’s Enhancement;
· $ 1,312,890.96 for Attorney’s Fees;
· $ 20,442.37 for Litigation costs; and
· $ 188,000.00 for Settlement Administrator’s Fees and Costs.
Plaintiff's counsel are ordered to file a revised proposed order, consistent herewith, within 5 court days, and to give notice.