Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCP03215, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03215    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On October 4, 2024, Petitioner Joshua Newton (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award against Respondents Clark Grandin, Bruce Hamilton, Gregory Kemp, and Walter Nelson (collectively, “Respondents”).

Respondents now move for an order sealing a number of documents and portions of documents. The motion is unopposed. 

Discussion

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).)

Respondents move for an order sealing “(1) portions of the Petition to Vacate filed by Petitioner Joshua Newton on October 4, 2024 (the ‘Petition’), (2) portions of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Petition, (3) select exhibits to the Declaration of Joshua Newton in Support of the Petition (4) portions of Respondents’ Response in Opposition to…Joshua Newton’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, (5) select exhibits to the Declaration of Martin D. Singer in Support of Respondents’ Response in Opposition to Joshua Newton’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award[1], and (6) portions of this Motion to Have Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Opposition Thereto Filed Under Seal (‘Motion’) and its accompanying Declaration of Allison S. Hart and exhibits…” (Notice of Mot. at p. 1:6-15.)

More specifically, Respondents indicate that they seek to seal the following portions of Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award: “Attachment 4(c); Attachment 8(c); p. 9, Ground 3, Lines 1-2 and 4-5; p. 10, Line 1; p. 10, Ground 5, lines 2-5.” (Mot. at p. 5:3-4.)

Respondents seek to seal the following portions of Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Petition: “p. 1:16-25; p. 2:1-28; p. 3:1- 28; p. 4:1-6, p. 9:8-9, p. 10:14, p. 10:20, p. 10:22, p. 11:1-16; p. 11:26-28; p. 12:1-3; 12:10-28; p. 13:1-18; 14:1-7; 14:13-19; 14:27-15:8.” (Mot. at p. 5:9-11.)

Respondents seek to seal the following exhibits attached to the Declaration of Joshua Newton in Support of the Petition: “Exhibits A-I, K, L, N-Z, AA, AC, AD, AE, AF, and AG.” (Mot. at p. 5:20.)

Respondents seek to seal the following portions of Respondents’ response in opposition to the Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award: “p. 3:16-14:22 (paragraphs 6-65).” (Mot. at p. 5:25.)[2] Respondents also seek to seal “[t]he Declaration of Martin D. Singer in support of Respondents’ response in opposition to the Petition and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in opposition to the Petition and the Exhibits 1-31 thereto.” (Mot. at p. 5:26-28.) The Court notes that the subject Declaration of Martin D. Singer attaches Exhibits 1-29. There does not appear to be any Exhibit 30 or Exhibit 31.

Respondents also seek to seal the following portion of the memorandum of points and authorities in support of instant motion to seal: “p.1:19-4:16.” (Mot at p. 6:9.)[3] In addition, Respondents seek to seal “the Declaration of Allison S. Hart in support of the present motion to seal, and Exhibits A-E attached thereto. (Mot. at p. 6:10-11.)[4]

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Respondents do not appear to have lodged an unredacted copy of Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award. The Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award filed in this action on October 4, 2024 contains certain redacted material. Thus, the Court is unable to review all of the portions of the Petition that Respondents seek to seal. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(4), “[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.”

In addition, Respondents indicate that they seek to seal, inter alia, “p. 9, Ground 3, Lines 1-2 and 4-5; p. 10, Line 1; p. 10, [and] Ground 5, lines 2-5” of the Petition. (Mot. at p. 5:3-4.) The Court notes that the Petition is only 3 pages (without the attachments) and does not contain any pages 9-10. It is unclear what Respondents’ reference to “Ground” means.

As a further threshold matter, Respondents move to seal the “Declaration of Allison S. Hart in Support of this Motion to Seal.” (Mot. at p. 1:15.) However, as set forth above, Ms. Hart’s declaration filed with the instant motion on October 30, 2024 is unredacted. It is unclear if Respondents request that the Court consider and discuss the unredacted version of Ms. Hart’s declaration in the instant Order on Respondents’ motion to seal.

In addition, Respondents assert that “there is an overriding interest where, as here, there is a contractual obligation not to disclose the Confidential Information governed by the Settlement Agreement and confidential Arbitration Award.” (Mot. at p. 6:24-26.) Respondents assert that “the parties contractually agreed to keep certain Confidential Information, confidential.” (Mot. at p. 7:6-7.) However, Respondents do not provide a clear analysis concerning what the parties’ applicable contractual obligations are, and how they prohibit the parties from disclosing the materials that are the subject of Respondents’ motion to seal.

The Court finds that further evidence and analysis is necessary connecting the parties’ contractual obligations to the material Respondents seek to seal. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1), “[t]he motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”

Conclusion 

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Respondents’ motion to seal without prejudice.

Respondents are ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED:  January 28, 2025                           

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Cour