Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV27682, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling
Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.
Case Number: 21STCV27682 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
21STCV27682 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
April
26, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: defendant’s motion to seal |
||
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Apple Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed
Motion to Seal
The court considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition filed
in connection with this motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order filing
under seal the following exhibits filed in support of its motion for summary
judgment: (1) exhibit A to the declaration of Connie L. Michaels; (2) the
declaration of Lauren Feist, including exhibits A-F and exhibits H and J
attached thereto; and (3) the declaration of Christopher Pershing, including
exhibits C through F and I attached thereto.
Defendant has filed public versions of the declarations that omit the
exhibits described above and state that they are redacted.
Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless
confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550,
subd. (c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order
that a record be filed under seal “if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)
The court finds that (1) there exists an overriding interest that
overcomes the right of public access to the record because the exhibits include
private and confidential information relating to (i) third parties, and (ii)
Defendant’s personnel policies, (2) the overriding interest supports sealing
the record to preserve the privacy rights of third-party employees and
Defendant’s private policies, (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.
Rules of Ct., rule 2.550, subd. (d); Michaels Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)
ORDER
The court grants defendant Apple Inc.’s motion to seal.
The court orders that the unredacted versions of the following exhibits
shall be filed under seal pursuant to this order: (1) Exhibit A, as attached to
the “Declaration of Connie L. Michaels in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of
Issues,” filed by defendant Apple Inc. on April 3, 2023; (2) the “Declaration
of Lauren Feist in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication,” and Exhibits A, B, C,
D, E, F, H, and J, as attached to that declaration, filed by defendant Apple
Inc. on April 3, 2023; and (3) the “Declaration of Christopher Pershing in
Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the
alternative, Summary Adjudication,” and Exhibits C, D, E, F, and I, as attached
to that declaration, filed by defendant Apple Inc. on April 3, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court