Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCP00478, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCP00478    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          On August 5, 2024, respondent Pasaca Capital, Inc. (“Pasaca”) filed this motion to seal a supplemental declaration filed by petitioner Sean E. Rogers (“Rogers”). Pasaca had filed a motion to stay the inspection of records while its appeal of the Court’s order allowing such inspection was pending. Rogers opposed a stay and on July 25, 2024, he filed his own declaration in support of his opposition. A redacted copy was filed in the public record and an unredacted copy was lodged conditionally under seal. Pasaca moves to seal portions of the unredacted lodged declaration on the grounds that they describe Pasaca’s confidential financial and business information. The motion is unopposed.

          A motion or application to file under seal must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration¿containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (CRC 2.551(b)(1).) “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. (CRC 2.550(d).) “An order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and¿ (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” (CRC 2.550(e).)

“A request to seal a document must be filed publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration or affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” (In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416.) Here, Patrick J. Somers, Pasaca’s attorney, declares that Rogers’s declaration attaches a confidential stock redemption agreement with confidential financial information and refers to such information within the declaration. (Somers Decl., ¶ 4.) The confidential information includes “information bearing on [Pasaca’s] total number of shares, its valuation, and tax information.” (Ibid.) Somers declares that public disclosure of this information “would reveal highly sensitive private information between a former executive and [Pasaca]” and “could negatively impact Pasaca’s ability to negotiate future contracts with executives, its customer relationships, and could also be used by Pasaca’s competitors to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace by gaining unrestricted access to Pasaca’ non-public and sensitive information.” (Ibid.)

The Court additionally notes that the public interest in Exhibit A and its information is low because it is irrelevant to the merits of Pasaca’s motion for a stay and indeed, was not considered when the Court ruled on Pasaca’s motion. (See generally Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co. (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2017) WL 8294276, at *1 [“Records attached to motions that are not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.”])

          Based on the foregoing, Pasaca’s motion to seal is GRANTED as to page 2, lines 21 through 27, and Exhibit A of the Supplemental Declaration of Sean E. Rogers.

Dated this 15th day of November, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.