Case Number: BC694781 Hearing Date: July 26, 2019 Dept: 74
BC694781 UMG RECORDINGS SERVICES INC VS ROK MOBILE INC
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication and Applications to File Documents under Seal
TENTATIVE RULINGS: The applications to file documents under seal are advanced to today and granted. Summary judgment and summary adjudication of the first and second causes of action are denied as there are triable issues of fact as to whether UMG and its predecessor performed its obligations under the contract and whether any lack of performance excused ROK’s obligations under the contract by UMG granting ROK’s competitors rights the ROK had requested and was denied after UMG promised it would not do so, and granting those rights to competitors put ROK in the position of not being able to compete in the marketplace.
Applications to File under Seal
Plaintiff has filed an application to file documents in support of the motion under seal, set for hearing October 15, 2019, and an application to file documents under seal in reply to opposition set for hearing November 12, 2020. Defendant has filed an application to file documents under seal in opposition to the motion set for hearing January 21, 2020. The hearings on those applications is advanced to today, July 26, 2019.
The redacted portions of the documents concern the written agreement between the parties, which has a confidentiality provision, and the date generated pursuant to the contract. The information redacted is a trade secret or confidential information.
Courts must find compelling reasons, prejudice absent sealing and the lack of less-restrictive means, before ordering filed documents sealed. (McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988, “the protection of trade secrets is an interest that can support sealing records . . . .”.) A proposed sealing must be narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, such as by sealing portions of pleadings or redacting particular text. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052, 1070.)
Parties have established that the information to be sealed is confidential or trade secret corporate information. The redacted portions of the documents are narrowly tailored to seal only the portions of the documents containing the information, and redacted copies were publicly filed.
The applications are granted.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication
A defense of estoppel requires the party to be estopped was apprised of the facts; that party intended that the conduct be acted upon; or acted such that the other party had a right to believe it was intended; the other party was ignorant of the true facts; and the other party relied upon the conduct to the party’s injury. (Chen v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 761, 772 n. 14; Cotta v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1567.) Equitable estoppel is a defense applying to prevent parties from profiting from the detriment they induced others to suffer, or from taking an unfair advantage of others. (Money Store Investment Corp. v. So. Cal. Bank (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 722, 732.)
ROK has submitted evidence that material to it entering the agreement were UMG’s statements that ROK would have a level playing field, that ROK would be competitive and that no competitor would be granted rights ROK had requested and been denied and that UMG knew ROK needed the assurances because the market is competitive, that UMG gave the assurances intending for ROK to sign the contract, that ROK had no means to discover the true facts and relied on the assurances in entering the contract, and that UMG actions made ROK not competitive and permitted ROK’s competitors rights that it denied ROK.
This evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether UMG performed the contract, and whether ROK’s performance of the contract was excused.
Summary judgment is denied. As UMG’s performance, and ROK’s lack of performance are issues in both causes of action, summary adjudication is also denied.