Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV29137, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV29137, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV29137 Hearing Date: March 6, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: March 6, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Nasdaq Technology AB v. Innovative Partnerships Group, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV29173

(1) MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

(2) MOTION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE

MOVING PARTY: (1) Plaintiff Nasdaq Technology, A.B.; (2) Plaintiff Nasdaq Technology, A.B., on behalf of Attorney Lesley Frieder Wolf.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of March 3, 2025.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract that was filed on November 6, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intentionally sabotaged an affiliated entity which had contracted with Plaintiff for technology services so as to avoid their financial obligations under the contract.

Plaintiff moves to seal portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff also applies for the admission of Attorney Lesley Frieder Wolf as counsel for Plaintiff pro hac vice.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s application for the admission of Attorney Lesley Frieder Wolf as counsel for Plaintiff pro hac vice is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Seal

Plaintiff moves to seal portions of the Complaint.

The sealing of court records is governed by California Rules of Court rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68.) The presumption of open access to court records does not apply to “records that are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) A party seeking to seal a court record or seeking to file a record under seal must do so by motion or application supported by a declaration showing facts justifying the record’s sealing. (Id., rule 2.551(b)(1).)

California Rules of Court rule 2.550(d) states: “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only 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.”

Once sealed, a record can only be unsealed by order of court. (Id., rule 2.551(h)(1).) So long as it remains under seal, all parties must refrain from filing anything not under seal that would disclose the sealed matter. (Id., rule 2.551(c).) If a party files a new document referring to sealed matter, it must submit an unredacted version of the document under seal and a redacted one for the public record. (Id., rule 2.551(b)(5); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.)

Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of paragraphs 7, 11, 15, 56, 57, 62, 68, 83, 87, 88, 104, 106, 108, and 110 in the Complaint, and all exhibits to the Complaint, on the grounds that those portions of the pleadings contain Plaintiff’s proprietary technical and business information and the financial information of non-party GMSE LLC. Sealing orders are appropriate to protect business records which would reveal information which would interfere with a party’s ability to effectively compete in the marketplace or would otherwise prejudice a business’s commercial abilities. (Universal City Studios v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1284-86.) Plaintiff has submitted a declaration from the Principal Associate General Counsel of its parent company, who states, under penalty of perjury, that the Design Study Agreement and IT Services Agreement, attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 1 and 2, provide detailed descriptions of Plaintiff’s deliverables, methodology, technology, and services. (Declaration of Joanne Pedone ISO Mot. ¶¶ 4-5.) Ms. Pedone declares that disclosure of these materials would harm Plaintiff’s position by permitting its competitors to replicate Plaintiff’s business solutions. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff is not well-positioned to speak to the application of any interest to the remaining exhibits, which are various operating agreements for non-party GMSE LLC. However, the exhibits themselves demonstrate on their face that they contain confidential financial information for the entity to which they refer. On this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated an interest in the protection of its technical and business information which will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, and therefore overcomes the right of public access and supports sealing the record. The Court also finds that non-party GMSE LLC has an interest in the privacy of its financial information which requires sealing the record, as to do otherwise would potentially work an injustice to an entity which is not before the Court. As the allegations in the body of the Complaint which are at issue consist entirely of direct references to these exhibits, the Court reaches identical conclusions regarding the sealing of the specified paragraphs.

The Court also finds that the proposed sealing, which is limited to the exhibits and to select portions of specified paragraphs, is narrowly tailored. The proposed redactions seal only the fine details of the agreements at issue, while leaving the gravamen of the claims and the alleged course of conduct giving rise to those claims in the public record. The Court therefore also finds on the same basis that there is no less-restrictive means available to achieve the overriding interests addressed above.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Plaintiff also applies for the admission of Attorney Lesley Frieder Wolf as counsel for Plaintiff pro hac vice.

1. __X__ The application is verified.¿(Cal. Rule of Court Rule 9.40(c)(1).)

2. __X__ The application is accompanied by a proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a or by email in accordance with section 1010.6(e).¿(Rule 9.40(c)(1).) (Proof of Service.)

3. __X__ Notice of hearing has been given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.¿(Rule 9.40(c)(1).)

4. _n/a_The application was served in a shorter period for notice the court prescribed.¿(Rule 9.40(c)(1).)

5. __X__ The application shows service on all parties who have appeared and the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. (Rule 9.40(c)(1).) (Proof of Service.)

6. __X__ Proof that applicant paid a reasonable fee not exceeding $500 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing.¿(Rule 9.40(e).) (Application Exh. A.)

7. __X __ The applicant is not a resident of the State of California.¿(Rule 9.40(a)(1).) (Application ¶ 5.)

8. __X__ The applicant is not regularly employed in the State of California.¿(Rule 9.40(a)(2).) (Application ¶ 5.)

9. __X_ The applicant is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.¿(Rule 9.40(a)(3).) (Application ¶ 5.)

10. __X__ The application states the applicant’s residence and office address.¿(CRC 9.40(d)(1).) (Application ¶ 1.)

11. __X_ The application states the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.¿(CRC 9.40(d)(2).) (Application ¶ 2.)

12. __X_ The application states that the applicant is a member in good standing in the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(3).) (Application ¶ 2.)

13. __X__ The application states that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(4).) (Application ¶ 2.)

14. __X__ The application states the title of court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(5).) (The applicant has not applied to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the past two years. Application ¶ 3 .)

15. __X__ The applicant has not made repeated appearances pursuant to Rule 9.40(b). (The applicant has not applied to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the past two years. Application ¶ 3 .)

16. __N/A__ Any special circumstances for repeated appearances pursuant to Rule 9.40(b). “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.” (Rule 9.40(b).) (No appearances in past two years.)

17. __X__The application states the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(6).) (Application ¶ 4.)

18. __X_ $500 filing fee per application paid. (See reservation page.)

As the application complies with all requirements of Rule 9.40, Plaintiff’s application for the admission of Attorney Lesley Frieder Wolf as counsel for Plaintiff pro hac vice is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is Granted.

Plaintiff’s application for the admission of Attorney Lesley Frieder Wolf as counsel for Plaintiff pro hac vice is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2025 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.