Motion to Seal (Judge Kim Dunning)

Universal Card/SBGA Motion to Seal

Opposition

Reply

Tentative:? Deny in part; grant in part

Moving parties seek to seal the following court documents, pursuant to California rules of court, rule 2.550(d):

  1. Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ June 8, 2016 supplemental brief;
  2. Exhibit B to June 8, 2016 Kinkead declaration in support of Motion to Continue Trial;
  3. Exhibit C to June 8, 2016 Kinkead declaration in support of Motion to Continue Trial;
  4. Exhibit 1 to June 9, 2016 Kinkead declaration in support of Motion in Limine No. 7.

 

  1. Two versions were filed, but there are no redactions in either of them.? One is not under seal.? The parties’ agreement to keep the document confidential does not, standing alone, justify sealing.? The standards for sealing have not been met.
  2. Two versions were filed, but there are no redactions to Exhibit B in either of them.? One is not under seal.? The parties’ agreement to keep the document confidential does not, standing alone, justify sealing.? The standards for sealing have not been met.
  3. There is no declaration from a principal of either signatory to the agreement and no substantial evidence to justify sealing.? The standards for sealing have not been met.
  4. The court agrees with defendants that personal, identifying information should be redacted.? Defense counsel to submit proposed redacted version to?? Plaintiff counsel and court to ensure that the redactions are narrowly tailored.? With that, the court is prepared to make the rule 2.551(d) findings.