Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 22STCV13569, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 22STCV13569, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Greg Johnson brings this action against Defendants Philips Healthcare Informatics, Inc., and Philips North America, LLC. Plaintiff alleges he worked for Defendants as an account manager. On June 6, 2021, Plaintiff broke his femur. The injury prevented him from performing duties as a salesman such as driving, standing for prolonged periods, and sitting. This forced Plaintiff to take a leave of absence. Plaintiff also alleges that he raised safety concerns regarding Defendants’ equipment, and concerns that Defendants’ were making misrepresentations about the equipment to customers. Plaintiff alleges these factors resulted in him being discriminated and retaliated against, which resulted in his forced resignation.

Plaintiff now moves for an order to withdraw and conditionally file confidential documents under seal. Defendants filed a response stating they do not oppose the motion.

The declaration of Tamara Freeze filed in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on April 4, 2023, is hereby ordered SEALED. Plaintiff is ordered to re-file the Freeze Declaration and all accompanying exhibits with the limited redactions as discussed herein.

The sealing of court records is governed by California Rules of Court rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68.) The presumption of open access to court records does not apply to “records that are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) A party seeking to seal a court record or seeking to file a record under seal must do so by motion or application supported by a declaration showing facts justifying the record’s sealing. (Id., rule 2.551(b)(1).)

California Rules of Court rule 2.550(d) states: “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

Once sealed, a record can only be unsealed by order of court. (Id., rule 2.551(h)(1).) So long as it remains under seal, all parties must refrain from filing anything not under seal that would disclose the sealed matter. (Id., rule 2.551(c).) If a party files a new document referring to sealed matter, it must submit an unredacted version of the document under seal and a redacted one for the public record. (Id., rule 2.551(b)(5); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.)

Plaintiff Greg Johnson moves for leave to withdraw and refile documents filed with his opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendants support the sealing order.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order sealing and keeping confidential the following documents located in Exhibit 5 and 8 of Tamara Freeze’s Declaration: (1) Johnson 000365, (2) Johnson 000375-377, (3) Johnson 000379, and (4) Johnson 000394-407.

Plaintiff contends that these documents contain Defendant’s “sensitive confidential information,” and that disclosure of the documents undermines the parties’ protective order. (Mtn. 2: 16-18.) At the time Plaintiff filed the documents, no protective order was in place. Nonetheless, Plaintiff contends “these documents were inadvertently not redacted and should be withdrawn and re-filed under seal.” (Mtn. 5: 7-8.)

The court has reviewed the documents sought to be withdrawn and refiled under the seal. It appears the documents contain information regarding Defendants finances, trade secrets, non-public business dealings, among other things, that can reasonably be viewed as confidential or proprietary.

This court makes the following findings based on the record before it. Plaintiff has established an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the documents to be sealed based on their confidential nature. Plaintiff has likewise established the overriding interest supports sealing the record.

Similarly, a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. The information contained in the documents could allow competitors to analyze and copy PHI’s and PNA’s organization and operations, which could be detrimental to keeping its advantage in a highly competitive market. It could also provide competitors with nonpublic information related to PHI’s and PNA’s finances.

The proposed sealing record is narrowly tailored. The parties seek only to withdraw or redact limited portions of the documents subject to the sealing order. Finally, there is no less restrictive means to preserve the confidentiality of the records.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.