Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV05138, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05138    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Forex Express Corp., d/b/a WireCash         

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendant Eliran Grushkowsky (joined by (1) defendant Fernando Fayzano on January 24, 2024, and (2) defendants Inter & Co. Payments, Inc., and Inter & Co., Inc. on January 24, 2024)

Motion for Order to Seal Amended Identification of Trade Secrets

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Forex Express Corp., d/b/a WireCash (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order sealing (1) Plaintiff’s Amended Identification of Trade Secrets, attached as Exhibit 3 to the “Declaration of Elliot Z. Chen”, filed by defendant Eliran Grushkowsky (“Defendant”) in support of his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to seal on November 21, 2023, and (2) portions of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to seal, filed on November 21, 2023.  In light of the court’s January 25, 2024 order, Plaintiff now moves for an order sealing (1) the portions of the Amended Identification of Trade Secrets that were ordered sealed in that order, and (2) the following portions of Defendant’s opposition papers: (i) page 7, lines 26-27, (ii) page 9, lines 3-8 (right column), 20-23 (right column), and 27-28,  (iii) page 10, lines 7-10 (right column),          (iv) page 11, lines 12-15 and 17-21, (v) page 12, lines 1 and 2, (vi) page 13, lines 15-1 and 21-23, and (vii) page 16, lines 12-18.  (Reilly Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Reply, p. 3:13-14.)

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, as to the Amended Identification of Trade Secrets, that (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the information set forth on        (i) page 2, between lines 19-28, through page 3, lines 1-27, (ii) page 4, between lines 20-27 (but excluding the last sentence of paragraph 5, subdivision (b)), (iii) page 5, between lines 16-21, (iv) page 6, between lines 4-10, (v) page 6, between lines 14-16, (vi) page 6, between lines 24-28, through page 7, lines 1-2 (but excluding the last sentence of paragraph 10), and (vii) page 7, between lines 3-7 (but excluding the last sentence of paragraph 11 as set forth between the lines 6-8), because the information set forth therein includes content that may constitute or describe Plaintiff’s trade secrets; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record to preserve the confidentiality of this information; (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).)  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion as to those portions of the Amended Identification of Trade Secrets.

The court finds, as to Defendant’s opposition brief, that (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the information set forth on (i) page 9, lines 3-8 (right column), and (ii) page 10, lines 7-10 (right column), because that information quotes or describes information set forth in the Amended Identification of Trade Secrets that the court has determined may constitute Plaintiff’s trade secrets; (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 Ct., rule 2.550, subd. (d).)  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion as to those portions of Defendant’s opposition.  The court denies Plaintiff’s motion as to the information set forth in all other redacted paragraphs.

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiff Forex Express Corp., d/b/a WireCash’s motion for order to seal amended identification of trade secrets as follows.

            The court orders that the unredacted version of “Defendant Eliran Grushkowsky’s Opposition to Plaintiff Forex Express Corp.’s Motion for Order to Seal Plaintiff’s Amended Identification of Trade Secrets,” lodged with the court on November 21, 2023 by defendant Eliran Grushkowsky, shall be filed under seal.

            The court orders plaintiff Forex Express Corp., d/b/a WireCash to file a revised public redacted version of “Defendant Eliran Grushkowsky’s Opposition to Plaintiff Forex Express Corp.’s Motion for Order to Seal Plaintiff’s Amended Identification of Trade Secrets” that        (1) includes a cover identifying it as “Public—Redacts materials from sealed record,” and           (2) redacts the portions of the opposition brief and the Amended Identification of Trade Secrets (as attached as Exhibit 3 to the “Declaration of Elliot Z. Chen”) in a manner that is consistent with the order set forth above, by no later than February 23, 2024.

            Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (e), the court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the records ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the records as sealed by this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Forex Express Corp., d/b/a WireCash to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 6, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court