Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case BC609689 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

MARK KOLOKOTRONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

NINJA METRICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC609689

Hearing Date:

October 10, 2022

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF KNIGHT AND BISHOP, L.P.’S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS LODGED CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD ENFORCEMENT FEES AND COSTS TO JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Mark Kolokotrones and Knight and Bishop, L.P. (“KB”) initiated this action on February 8, 2016 against, among other defendants, Dmitri Williams (“Williams”), Robert Hawk (“Hawk”), and 37 Technology Ventures, LLC (“37 Technology”). On August 25, 2020, judgment was entered in this action in favor of KB pursuant to a final arbitration award.

KB now moves to seal certain documents in support of its motion to add enforcement fees and costs to judgment. The motion to seal is unopposed.

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. ((Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(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(d).)

KB seeks to file under seal: (1) with respect to the final award in the arbitration between KB and Hawk, 37 Technology, and Williams, JAMS Arbitration Case No. 1220060726, issued on March 31, 2020, by Arbitrator Hon. Charles W. McCoy, Jr. (Ret.) (the “Final Award”), the references to confidential portions of the Final Award in KB’s Motion to Add Enforcement Fees and Costs to Judgment; (2) references to confidential portions of the Final Award in the body of the Declaration of Marc F. Feinstein In Support of KB’s Motion to Add Enforcement Fees and Costs to Judgment (the “Feinstein Declaration”); and (3) Exhibit C to the Feinstein Declaration (collectively, the “Confidential Materials”).

KB contends that the Confidential Materials contain confidential information that is appropriately filed under seal. KB asserts that the parties agreed to keep certain information concerning the arbitration confidential, as set forth in the arbitration agreement. In particular, the parties agreed that “[t]he arbitration proceedings and arbitration award shall be maintained by the Parties as strictly confidential, except as is otherwise required by court order or as is reasonably necessary to confirm, correct, vacate or enforce the award.” (Feinstein Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, § 17(d).)

KB notes that it previously moved to file its petition to confirm arbitration award and certain supporting documents under seal. In its previous July 1, 2020 “Motion to Seal Documents Lodged Conditionally Under Seal,” KB sought to file under seal (among other documents) its
“Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award, including Attachment 8(c), which contains a final arbitration award issued in a dispute between KB and Defendants Robert Hawk, 37 Technology Ventures, LLC, and Dmitri Williams.” On August 19, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the motion to seal, subject to certain modifications. KB notes that in the instant motion, it is seeking to seal those portions of the Final Award that the Court found were entitled to be sealed and ordered sealed in the August 19, 2020 Order.

The Court’s August 19, 2020 Order provides, inter alia, “Petitioner argues that the parties would suffer harm and injury to their privacy rights through revelation of the confidential financial, personal, and business information that was subject to the confidentiality agreement in their arbitration proceedings, and it would promote alternative dispute resolutions such as arbitration. The Court finds that such a showing has been made with some minor exceptions: The name of the arbitrator in paragraph 6, the dates of the arbitration in paragraph 7, the date of the award in paragraph 8, the identity of the respondent as the party to pay the award in paragraph 8, the date of service of the award in paragraph 9 a and b, and the date for the start of interest in paragraph 10 d. The remaining information redacted from the publicly filed versions of the documents at issue, contain financial and business information. Thus, the Court finds that there is a substantial probability that the parties will be prejudiced absent sealing.” (August 19, 2020 Order at p. 2:22-3:7.) In connection with the instant motion, KB does not seek to file under seal a petition to confirm arbitration award, so the above-referenced modifications are not applicable.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that KB has demonstrated good cause to seal the Confidential Materials.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants KB’s motion to seal documents lodged conditionally under seal in support of KB’s motion to add enforcement fees and costs to judgment.

County of Los Angeles

Department 50