Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV22161, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22161    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 5, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant Talkdesk Inc. and against Plaintiffs Engineer.ai Corporation, Engineer.ai Global Limited, and Engineer.ai India Private Limited on the first amendment complaint.

On December 13, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for attorney fees.  On December 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to seal exhibits to the Declaration of Amy K. Van Zant.  Defendant did not file a separate Notice of Lodging, but it publicly filed redacted copies of the exhibits and provided the Court (and opposing counsel) with unredacted electronic copies.

DISCUSSION

The Court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it finds that (1) there is 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 absent sealing, (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and (5) no less restrictive means exists to achieve the overriding interest.  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)  A motion seeking an order sealing records must be accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)

A record must not be filed under seal without a court order, and a party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a)-(b).)  The party requesting sealing must also file a public redacted version and lodge conditionally under seal with the court a complete, unredacted version.  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4)-(b)(5).)

A.        The Court Will Seal Exhibit 1 (Billing Records) and Related Portions of the Declaration.

Defendant describes Exhibit 1 as “Talkdesk counsel’s detailed billing entries, including detailed narratives of counsel’s tasks and confidential discount information.”  (Yu Decl. ¶ 4.)  Defendant contends that “[i]t should be sealed entirely because it is replete with confidential details regarding the legal work and strategy for Talkdesk as well as confidential information related to discounts provided to Talkdesk.”  (Yu Decl. ¶ 4.)  Paragraphs 10, 19, and 37 of the Declaration of Amy K. Van Zant discuss some of this information.

Although “[n]ot all the information contained in billing invoices is ‘categorically privileged,’” a billing invoice may contain some privileged information.  (People v. Kelly (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1186.)  Even general information, “such as aggregate figures describing the total amount spent on continuing litigation during a given quarter or year, it may come close enough to this heartland [of attorney-client privilege] to threaten the confidentiality of information directly relevant to the attorney’s distinctive professional role.”  (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 297.)  “When a legal matter remains pending and active, the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice, including the amount of aggregate fees. . . . Midlitigation swings in spending, for example, could reveal an impending filing or outsized concern about a recent event.”  (Ibid.)

The Court finds that this attorney-client privilege concern is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, the overriding interest supports sealing the record, and a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.  The proposed redaction is narrowly tailored, and there are no less restrictive means. 

The motion is granted for these items.

B.        The Court Will Seal Portions of Exhibit 6 (References to Confidential Information).

Defendant describes Exhibit 6 as “a letter Amy Van Zant wrote to Engineer’s then-counsel Stephen Lobbin in May 2022.”  (Yu Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant explains that two of the six pages contain redactions of “quotes from or references to already-sealed documents discussing Talkdesk’s misused confidential and privileged information.”  (Yu Decl. ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that this confidentiality concern is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, the overriding interest supports sealing the record, and a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.  The proposed redaction is narrowly tailored, and there are no less restrictive means.  Additionally, the Court has previously ordered this information sealed in connection with other motions.          

The motion is granted for Exhibit 6.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion to seal is GRANTED.

On the Court’s own motion, the following hearings scheduled for January 14, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. are CONTINUED to January 16, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.:  (1) Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Talkdesk, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Depositions and for Sanctions; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; (2) Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena to Nonparty SML Avvocati; and (3) Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 9th day of January 2025