Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV34756, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV34756 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION TO SEAL
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Otis Elevator
Company’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.
Background
On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs Rachel Ingram and Isaac Ingram filed the instant action against HKA Elevator Consulting, Inc.; ABM Industries, Inc.; Otis Elevator Company; United Technologies Corporation; City of Los Angeles; City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Elevator Division; County of Los Angeles; County of Los Angeles Elevator and Safety Unit; State of California; State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Elevator Unit; and Does 1 through 110.
On November 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts causes of action for:
1) Negligence;
2) Negligence
– Common Carrier;
3) Premises
Liability;
4) Negligent
Products Liability – Failure to Warn;
5) Strict
Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect;
6) Strict
Products Liability – Design Defect;
7) Government
Code § 815 et seq.;
8) Government
Code § 815 et seq. – Premises Liability; and
9) Loss of Consortium.
On November 01, 2022,
Defendant Otis Elevator Company filed a Motion to Seal Documents related to
Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion For Summary Judgment, in the alternative,
Summary Adjudication.
Legal Standard
To seal a record, the following requirements are imposed: (1) the party must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record, which must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing; (2) the party must serve a copy of the motion on all parties who have appeared in the case; and (3) the party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court when the motion or application is made unless the record has previously been lodged. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b).)¿¿¿
The Court must make the following express factual findings in order to seal records: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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).)¿
An order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing of only those pages and documents or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal, and all other portions must be included in the public file. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (e).)¿
Discussion
Defendant/Cross-Defendant Otis Elevator Company (“Defendant”) moves to seal certain documents related to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
Pursuant to a Protective Order, Defendant has designated as “confidential” its proprietary Otis Maintenance Management System Procedures. (“OMMS Procedures”). (Golodnitska Decl. ¶ 2.)
Defendant’s OMMS Procedures constitute a library of Defendant’s confidential, proprietary maintenance procedures performed on elevators and escalators, and the steps each procedure entails. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant invested considerable time and expense to develop, test, analyze, distribute, and protect its trade secrets including the OMMS Procedures in order to gain a competitive advantage in manufacturing, servicing, and repairing elevator and escalator systems. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.)
If Defendant’s trade secrets are disclosed, Defendant will be prejudiced because it may lose its competitive advantage and negate the money and effort spent to develop and protect is OMMS procedures.
The Court agrees that Defendant has an overriding interest in protecting its trade secret information, including its OMMS procedures from unauthorized disclosures. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281 [“an interest in safeguarding a trade secret may overcome a presumption of openness.”].)
Accordingly, Defendant request that certain documents filed by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, remain redacted and under seal.
Excerpts of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Otis Elevator Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication filed on October 20, 2022, and as redacted on:
·
3:9-4:7, meaning page 3 lines 9 to 24 through
page 4 lines 1 to 7;
·
4:9-15, meaning page 4, lines 9 to 15;
·
12:18-19, meaning page 12 lines 18 to 19; and
· 13:1-3, meaning page 13 lines 1 to 3.
Excerpts of Plaintiffs’ Response to Separate Statement of
Defendant Otis Elevator Company in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or,
in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication filed on October 20, 2022, and as
redacted on:
·
Page 13: ¶ 42, Lines 21-22;
·
Page 15: ¶ 43, Lines 4-4;
·
Page 16: ¶ 44, Lines 21-22;
·
Page 18: ¶ 45, Lines 14-15, 17;
·
Page 20: ¶ 46, Lines 19-20, 21;
·
Page 23: ¶ 49, Line 12;
·
Page 24: ¶ 50, Line 22;
·
Page 27: ¶ 55, Line 3;
·
Page 27: ¶ 57, Lines 24-27;
·
Page 28: ¶ 57, Lines 14-15;
·
Page 29: ¶ 58, Lines 7-10;
·
Page 30: ¶ 58, Lines 14-15;
·
Page 30: ¶ 59, Lines 25-27;
·
Page 32: ¶ 59, Lines 17-18;
·
Page 33: ¶ 60, Lines 26-27;
·
Page 34: ¶ 61, Lines 9-12;
·
Page 35: ¶ 61, Lines 26-27;
·
Page 42: ¶ 66, Lines 17-20, 23-24;
·
Page 43: ¶ 67, Lines 26-28;
·
Page 44: ¶ 67, Lines 2, 6;
·
Page 45: ¶ 69, Line 19;
·
Page 46: ¶ 70, Lines 12-14;
·
Page 47: ¶ 70, Lines 20-21; and
· Page 52: ¶ 79, Lines 7-8.
Excerpts of Plaintiffs’ Statement of Additional
Undisputed Facts in Support of Opposition to Otis Elevator Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication filed on
October 20, 2022, and as redacted on:
·
Page 4: ¶ 14, Line 21;
·
Page 4: ¶ 15, Lines 25-26;
·
Page 5: ¶ 16, Line 3;
·
Page 5: ¶ 20, Line 21;
·
Page 6: ¶ 22, Line 6;
·
Page 6: ¶ 23, Line 11;
·
Page 8: ¶ 27, Line 2;
·
Page 9: ¶ 35, Line 9;
·
Page 9: ¶ 36, Lines 12-13;
·
Page 9: ¶ 37, Lines 17-18;
·
Page 9: ¶ 38, Line 21;
·
Page 9: ¶ 39, Lines 25-26;
·
Page 10: ¶ 40, Lines 3-4;
·
Page 10: ¶ 41, Line 11;
·
Page 10: ¶ 42, Lines 12-16, 18-19;
·
Page 10: ¶ 43, Lines 19-21, 22-23;
·
Page 10: ¶ 44, Lines 24-28;
·
Page 11: ¶ 44, Lines 1-6, 7-8;
·
Page 11: ¶ 45, Lines 9-12, 13;
·
Page 11: ¶ 46, Lines 14-18, 19, 20;
·
Page 12: ¶ 47, Lines 2-3;
·
Page 12: ¶ 50, Lines 15-18, 19;
· Page 19: ¶ 74, Line 26
Exhibits 9 and 13 to the Declaration of Eric Freedman in
Support of Opposition to Otis Elevator Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication filed on October 20, 2022.
Paragraphs 22 and 23 on page 9 and paragraph 27 on page 11 and paragraph 54 on page 17 as cited in Plaintiffs’ Declaration of Joseph L. Stabler in Support of Opposition to Otis Elevator Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication filed on October 20, 2022.
Having reviewed the unredacted versions lodged with the Court, the Court finds that the above redactions relate to Defendant’s OMMS system and should remain redacted due to Defendant’s overriding interest in its trade secrets regarding its OMMS Procedures. Moreover, the redactions are narrowly tailored and use the least restrictive means to protect Defendant’s trade secrets regarding OMMS Procedures.
Accordingly, the Motion to Seal is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Motion to Seal is GRANTED as delineated above.
Moving party to give notice.