4-2012-00129851

Inszone Insurance Services Inc vs. Dustin Lofrano

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Order Sealing Record

Filed By: Robson, Craig

On motion of the court, this matter is continued to 5/23/2014 at 09:00AM in this
department. If the new date is inconvenient for any party, then counsel shall meet and
confer and, no later than 4:00PM today, inform the Department 54 Clerk of their
request for a subsequent date.

This is a trade secret case. With its motion for summary judgment set for hearing on
May 7, 2014, Defendant Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Interstate
Insurance Brokers (“Defendant”) lodged conditionally under seal its Exhibits B and C.
Defendant served Plaintiff Inzone Insurance Services, Inc. d/b/a Proven Insurance
Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) with notice that Defendant did not intend to move to seal
these exhibits, which contain confidential, trade-secret information. Plaintiff did not
move to seal the exhibits within 10 days of notice pursuant to CRC 2.551(b)(3)(B).
Defendant takes the position that the clerk of the court must immediately file the
exhibits in their unredacted form. (See CRC 2.551(b)(3)(B).) Defendant further
argues that, because the information in Exhibits B and C must be made public,
Plaintiff’s trade-secret causes of action must be dismissed.

Plaintiff opposes on grounds, among others, that this court previously entered an order
sealing records with the same contents as the exhibits currently at issue. As Plaintiff

notes, provisions in the Rules of Court bar a party from disclosing the contents of a
sealed record. (See CRC 2.551(c) [“A record filed publicly in the court must not
disclose material contained in a record that is sealed…”]; see id. at 2.551(e)(4)
[“Unless the sealing order provides otherwise, it prohibits the parties from disclosing
the contents of any materials that have been sealed in any subsequently filed records
or papers”].) Notwithstanding these provisions, Defendant counters that a motion or
application to seal is required every time any party lodges confidential information
without expressing an intent to move to seal it from public view.

Plaintiff has the better argument. As the court reads CRC 2.551, a party is not
required to file successive motions to seal the same confidential information every time
it is lodged with the court. Thus, to the extent this court on 12/06/12 ordered certain
confidential materials sealed, Plaintiff was not required to bring a motion to seal the
same information. The parties, however, appear to dispute whether the information in
Exhibits B and C merely duplicate the information that the court ordered sealed on
12/06/12. Because Exhibits B and C, on the one hand, and the documents previously
sealed, on the other, both contain thousands of entries, the court is unable to
determine the degree to which the materials overlap.

No later than April May 2, 2014, counsel shall meet and confer, either in person or by
telephone, to establish a protocol by which they jointly determine the extent of overlap
between the materials ordered sealed on 12/06/12 and Exhibits B and C in the
pending motion for summary judgment. No later than May 13, 2014, counsel shall
jointly determine the extent of overlap, and no later than May 19, 2014, counsel shall
file a joint report that either (1) confirms that the court’s 12/06/12 order covers all of the
information in Exhibits B and C or (2) identifies the information in Exhibits B and C that
is not contained in the previously sealed records. If there is information in Exhibits B
and C that was not previously ordered sealed, then court will decide whether there is
merit to Plaintiff’s argument that, pursuant to CCP § 473(b), it is entitled to
discretionary relief from the failure timely to move to seal such information.

In concluding that Plaintiff was not required to bring a motion to seal confidential
information in Exhibits B and C that the court previously ordered sealed, the court is
aware of Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588. Among other
things, the Savaglio court held that the trial court in that case lacked discretion to
entertain an untimely motion to seal, at least where the motion was brought long after
the underlying merits issue was decided. (See 149 Cal.App.4th at 601.) Savalgio is
distinguishable, however, because it did not squarely address the question whether
successive motions are required to seal the same information. The question in
Savalgio was whether Wal-Mart was entitled to move belatedly to seal records that it
had placed in the trial court’s public files. (See id. at 595-596, 598, 600-601.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.