Judge Stephanie M. Bowick, Case Number: 24STCP02382, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 24STCP02382, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING

After full consideration of the papers and evidence filed, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as well as oral argument at the hearing, Petitioner Quinn Emanuel Urauhart & Sullivan LLP’s Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This petition arises out of a contractual arbitration proceeding, which occurred on April 10, 2024 and purportedly resulted in an arbitration award to Petitioner in the amount of $792,635.33.

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Petitioner Quinn Emanuel Urauhart & Sullivan LLP (“Petitioner”) moves for an order to file under seal the redacted portions of Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Richard H. Doss, Esq. in support of its Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award.

The motion is made on the grounds that these exhibits are confidential documents and an overriding interest exist for them to remain confidential.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).) “A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.” (CRC, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(2).)

Finally, “[t]he party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal.” (CRC, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(4).)

Here, Petitioner seeks to file under seal (1) the written engagement agreement dated August 7, 2018 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Respondent Ustocktrade Securitites, Inc. (“Respondent”) retained Petitioner as legal counsel – Exhibit A; (2) the Final Award in JAMS Arbitration Case No. 522002163 (the “Award”) – Exhibit B; and the Declaration of Richard H. Doss, Esq. in support of its Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Doss Decl. ISO Petition”), which contains Exhibits A and B.

The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated there is an overriding interest in filing the specified Exhibits and declaration under seal.

First, Petitioner contends the Agreement should be filed under seal because it constitutes a confidential communication between a client and lawyer. Specifically, “ ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ means information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship.” (Evid. Code § 952 (emphasis added).) Likewise, “[a] written fee contract shall be deemed to be a confidential communication within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6068 and of Section 952 of the Evidence Code.” The Agreement between Petitioner and Respondent constitutes a written fee contract and/or retainer agreement because it discussed the scope and nature of Petitioner’s legal representation of Respondent, billing, retainer fee amount, and responsibilities of each respective party. (Doss Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 1.) Furthermore, the Agreement does state that it is “strictly confidential – attorney-client privileged material.” As such, a public filing of the Agreement would disclose a communication between a lawyer and client made in confidence regarding the scope and nature of legal services to be rendered.

Similarly, Petitioner asserts the Award should be filed under seal because the JAMS Arbitration was conducted pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, thus expressly confidential. (Doss Decl., ¶6; see generally Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.) Petitioner also asserts the Agreement expressly provides that the arbitration proceedings and decision of the arbitrator would be confidential. (Doss Decl., ¶7.) Moreover, Petitioner contends the Award itself cites to portions of the Agreement, provides summaries of Petitioner’s legal services derived from monthly invoices, and quotes portions of orders issued by the arbitration panel. (Doss Decl., ¶12.) Additionally, the Doss Decl. ISO Petition contains excerpts from the Agreement and Award, therefore it is contains confidential information subject to this motion. Lastly, Petitioner’s requests is narrowly tailored to the sealing of only the Agreement, Award, and declaration, which contains them as exhibits. There does not appear to be any less restrictive means of protecting the confidential communications between Petitioner and Respondent nor the confidential information that was used to determine the arbitration award.