Application for Order to View and Reproduce Exhibits in California

(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) There is no compelling public interest in knowledge of defendants' health issues. (b) "The overriding interest supports sealing the record." (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) Defendant's privacy rights in her own health issues. (c) "A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed." (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) "The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored." (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).)

In addition, although that motion included a proposed order, the order did not contain the findings required by Rule 2.550(d)-(e)(1)(A). The proposed order submitted by Defendants on March 26, 2021 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.550(d)-(e)(1)(A), because it simply recites the conclusions set forth in Rule 2.550(d) without specifically stating any facts that support those findings.

(CRC, rule 2.550.) Unless confidentiality is required by statute or rule of court, California court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).)

(CRC 2.550(d).)

Moving party has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the requirements of CRC 2.550. CRC 2.550 states in relevant part: (c) Court records presumed to be open Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.

CRC Rule 2.550(d)(1) and (2). There is a substantial probability that disclosing the amounts would prejudice party interest in confidentiality. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3). The Motion is very narrowly tailored and seeks only to seal the specific dollar amounts of the Order. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(4). Finally, there does not appear to be a less restrictive means to keep the monetary amount confidential. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(5). Having met each of the requirements of CRC Rule 2.550(d), the Court GRANTS the motion.

Rules Court, rule 2.550(d).) A contractual obligation not to disclose information in a settlement agreement can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 2.550. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283); Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106-107.) But the party seeking to seal the record must still demonstrate "a substantial probability that it will be prejudiced absent closure or sealing."

Notice Of Joint Motion And For Order Pursuant To California Rules Of Court, Rules 2.550 And 2.551 Sealing The Courts Order Approving Compromise Of Pending Action Set for hearing on Monday, August 3, 2015, Line 3: PLAINTIFFS FREDERICK MAHAN and MARTHA MAHAN'S Joint Motion For Order Pursuant To California Rules Of Court, Rules 2.550 And 2.551 Sealing The Courts Order Approving Compromise Of Pending Action. Grant, no opposition filed and the motion complies with CRC 2.550 and 2.551.

(See CRC 2.550(e)(1)(A) [sealing order must “[s]pecifically state the facts that support the findings[.]”])

(See CRC 2.550(e)(1)(A) [sealing order must “[s]pecifically state the facts that support the findings[.]”])

Generally, California Rules of Court (CRC) 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (CRC 2.550(a)(1).) However, “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (CRC 2.550(a)(3).) Objections to a discovery referee’s findings are discovery proceedings. Therefore, the court is not required to make the factual findings set forth in CRC 2.550(d) ordinarily required for sealing records.

The court must make express findings to support sealing a court record under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 (Rule 2.550).

The proposed order, however, does not comply with the requirements that the court “expressly find facts that establish” grounds for the order (CRC 2.550(d) [emphasis added]), and that the order “[s]pecifically state the facts that support the findings[.]” (CRC 2.550(e)(1)(B).)

(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).

Legal Standard California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rules 2.550 and 2.551 govern records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC Rule 2.550(c).) A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record. (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1).)

The parties still have not complied with the requirements of Rule 2.550.

Pursuant to CRC §§ 2.550, 2.551, there is therefore good cause to grant this motion, to maintain the confidentiality of the wage statement material (including social security numbers) inadvertently attached as Exhibit B to the Madoni declaration (Docket no. 207), supporting the pending Motion to Certify, herein. Generally, as to sealing of documents, see CRC §§ 2.550, 2.551, and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.

That fact is not enough to satisfy rule 2.550.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd.

Notice Of Motion For Court Order Sealing Petition Pursuant To C.R.C. 2.550 And 2.551 On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, February 13, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 8. Plaintiffs' motion for order sealing petition pursuant to CRC 2.550 and 2.551: hearing required. The hearing will be at 9:45a.m. Plaintiffs must bring a proposed order to the hearing that complies with CRC 2.550 and 2.551. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

If Plaintiff filed a redacted version of its opposition papers with the clerk's office, either Plaintiff or Defendants must file a separate application to file those papers under seal pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. or those papers will subsequently be unsealed. (See Rule 2.550(b)(3)(B).)

The procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.

A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the "opposition" is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. Even where the motion is not opposed, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550.

To allow sealing of the record, including redactions thereof, the court must make the necessary findings under California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551.

The Court evaluates the Motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c) .)

Legal Standard California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 set forth specific criteria for permanently sealing court records. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550.

LEGAL STANDARD A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the “opposition” is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. Even where the motion is not opposed, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550.

Defendants AT&T and Christian Morelli Motion for an Order Sealing Videotape pursuant to Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 is DENIED. Motions to Seal and Unseal Records in both civil and criminal cases are governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 et seq. Under California law, unless confidentiality is required, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c).) Even an agreement by the parties to file documents under seal is insufficient.

Notice Of Motion For Court Order Sealing Petition Pursuant To C.R.C. 2.550 And 2.551 On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, February 11, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 2. Plaintiffs? motion for order sealing petition pursuant to CRC 2.550 and 2.551 is continued to February 13, 2014 per plaintiffs? amended notice. = (503/TLJ)

Plaintiff is to comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 in filing his unredacted version. Defendant is to give notice.

California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 govern the sealing of court records.

Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d); see also NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1218.) The Court has a "considerable amount of discretion in deciding whether to seal or unseal portions of a judicial record." (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 292, 295). The Court will sign the proposed order (ROA # 470) at the hearing of this Motion.

Rules Court, rule 2.550(d).) Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish the documents should be sealed. Plaintiff shall advise the court whether the document shall be unsealed no later than June 7, 2019. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) _____________________________________________ Defendants Randall Kay and Jones Day's Motion to Seal Documents Lodged with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is denied.

Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551.

California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d); McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th25, 32. The burden to make such a showing is on the party seeking to seal the documents. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894. This matter is continued to allow Defendant to submit further facts to satisfy its burden under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).

Notice Of Motion And Motion To File Reply Brief And Supporting Documents Under Seal Pursuant To Crc 2.550 And 2.551 SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, MARCH O2, 2007, LINE 9. PLAINTIFF PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC. AND, PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS (USA) INC.'S Motion To File Reply Brief And Supporting Documents Under Seal Pursuant To C.R.C. SECTIONS 2.550 And 2.551 IS GRANTED. =(302/PJM)

(Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(1).) Maintaining confidentiality of these records supports sealing the record in this discovery proceeding. (Id., rule 2.550(d)(2).) If the record is not sealed, Becton’s interest in the confidentiality of this information would be compromised and Becton may suffer competitive harm. (Id., rule 2.550(d)(3).)

The opposition paper correctly notes that CRC 2.550 et seq. is not applicable to discovery motions. Unlike other materials, there is no right of public access to, and hence no need to seal, discovery materials filed or lodged in court in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. (CRC 2.550(a)(3).) Therefore, materials lodged with the court in connection with discovery motions are generally exempt from public access.

The Motion is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2551.

The opposition paper correctly notes that CRC 2.550 et seq. is not applicable to discovery motions. Unlike other materials, there is no right of public access to, and hence no need to seal, discovery materials filed or lodged in court in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. (CRC 2.550(a)(3).) Therefore, materials lodged with the court in connection with discovery motions are generally exempt from public access.

STANDARD A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the "opposition" is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. Even where the motion is not opposed, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550.

S Motion To File Supplemental Items, Submitted Pursuant To Judge Mahoney'S Request, Re PLAINTIFFS' Motion For Preliminary Injunction Under Seal Pursuant To C.R.C 2.550 And 2.551: A HEARING IS REQUIRED. =(302/PJM)

Nevertheless, the Court evaluates the Motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

ANALYSIS California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 relate to “records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order,” and “record” is defined as “all or a portion of a document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court.” (Cal. Rules Court, rule 2.550(a)(1), (b)(1).) But “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (Id., rule 2.550(a)(3).)

A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the "opposition" is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. C.R.C. 2.550(c) states, "Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open." See also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178.

The proposed order submitted with the moving papers does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(e), because it recites neither the findings required by Rule 2.550(d) nor the facts supporting those findings. By no later than December 21, FS shall electronically lodge with the clerk’s office a revised proposed order that complies with the requirements of Rule 2.550(e), and specifically states the facts supporting the required findings.

Rules Court, rule 2.550(d). A contractual obligation not to disclose information in a settlement agreement can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 2.550. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283); Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106-107.) But the party seeking to seal the record must still demonstrate "a substantial probability that it will be prejudiced absent closure or sealing."

Ct. 2.550. Counsel for the plaintiff is required to prepare a proposed order which recites the findings required by Cal. R. Ct. 2.550 and specifies the document to be sealed (i.e., the complaint) and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing.=(302/EPS)

In Witkin the author clearly summarized that C.R.C., Rules 2.550 and 2.551 apply to trial court records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. They do not apply to discovery motions and records in discovery proceedings but, they do apply to discovery materials used at trial or submitted for adjudication of matters other than discovery proceedings. (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(a).) 2 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Courts § 42 (2008).

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision¿(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”¿¿Nevertheless,¿a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551.¿¿California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision¿(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision¿(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”¿¿Nevertheless,¿a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551.¿¿California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision¿(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

SECTIONS 2.550 And 2.551 IS CONTINUED TO MARCH 26, 2007; TO BE HEARD WITH OTHER SEALING MATTERS. =(302/PJB)

Rule 2.550(e). In addition, it must prepare a draft of an order that comports with Rule 2.550(e).

Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551.

The motion is unopposed and defendant demonstrates good cause for the relief pursuant to CRC 2.550 et seq. Defendant shall prepare a proposed order that complies with CRC 2.550(d). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

No opposition filed and good cause shown under CRC 2.550 et seq. Plaintiff shall prepare an order that sets forth the findings of CRC 2.550(d) and complies with CRC 2.550(e). Effective Monday, June 28, 2021, for the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, attorneys and parties may appear either in person in Department 302 or remotely by videoconference using Zoom.

(CRC Rule 2.550(c).) However, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550-2.551. “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b).)

Even in the absence of any opposition evidence or argument, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550(d). (In re Marriage of Nicholas, 186 Cal.App.4th at 1578 ("Parties no longer can stipulate ... to seal certain records from public view").) C.R.C. 2.550(d) and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.

(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).

Ct. 2.550 and 2.551 are met. Counsel for Oracle is required to prepare a proposed order which states that the motion was not opposed and makes the requisite findings under Cal. R. Ct. 2.550 and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing. =(302/EPS)

Defendant is directed to submit a proposed order which reflects the required findings set forth in Rule 2.550(d).

The Court has reviewed the Stipulation and Protective Order filed September 27, 2021, which provides for the parties to file Confidential Material under seal in accordance with, inter alia, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 of the California Rules of Court. (9/27/2021 Prot. Order ¶ 8.)

Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551; Misenti decl., ¶ 9, Exhibit I; Reply, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff failed to file a motion or an application for an order sealing the document. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) Moreover, plaintiff did not address the factors in California Rule of Court, rule 2.550(d). Accordingly, the Court cannot make the express factual findings as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

As to other information, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to permit moving party to submit a supplemental declaration to address the factors set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d). The original Declaration of Thomas N. Fitzgibbon did not adequately address with facts sufficient to justify the sealing [CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1)], especially the factor that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3).

As to other information, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to permit moving party to submit a supplemental declaration to address the factors set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d). The original Declaration of Thomas N. Fitzgibbon did not adequately address with facts sufficient to justify the sealing [CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1)], especially the factor that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3).

No opposition filed and plaintiff demonstrates good cause pursuant to CRC 2.550. The court will execute the proposed order, which complies with CRC 2.550(d) and (e). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. =(302/RU)

The Court agrees with Tyler Mall that it has met the first three prongs of Rule 2.550(d). The Court finds that the need to keep private its security protocols are substantial, and the need to keep this information private overrides any public interest.

Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551.

Rules of Court 2.550(d). The application and points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff is insufficient for the court to make these findings. Plaintiff is directed to file a motion in compliance with Rule 2.550 substantiated with evidence for an order sealing records. Moving party to give notice.

Any proposed order must comply with rule 2.550(d) and (e) as well as 2.551(e) of the California Rules of Court.

(CRC 2.550(d).) However, rule 2.550 does not apply to “discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3); see also Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 100 [discovery documents attached to filed complaint were not subject to a presumptive right of access, where not used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication.].)

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(2); see In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 298–299 [“a mandatory confidentiality requirement … is imposed … in actions initiated pursuant to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act for misappropriation of trade secrets”].)

(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).) (4) What Constitutes an “Overriding Interest?”

Plaintiff'S Motion For An Order Sealing The Filing And Records Pusuant To California Rules Of Court 2.550 And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of An Order To Seal The Filing Motion Compliant Amended Compliant Replies Rebuttals Answers Demurrer And Any Other Motions And Documents Filed In This Case Matter on calendar for Wednesday, May 4, 2017, Line 7, PLAINTIFF RAYNARD DAVIS' Motion For An Order Sealing The Filing And Records Pusuant To California Rules Of Court 2.550 And Memorandum Of Points

No opposition filed and plaintiff demonstrates good cause pursuant to CRC 2.550. The court will execute the proposed order, which complies with CRC 2.550(d) and (e). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. =(302/RU)

In response to this opinion, the Courts issued CRC rules 2.550 and 2.551 to establish a standard and procedures for Courts to use when a request is made to obtain the order required by NBC Subsidiary to seal a record.

(CRC § 2.550(d).) The motion is GRANTED. There is no opposition.

Moving party is to submit a supplemental declaration addressing all factors set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d), especially (d)(3). Supplemental declaration is due September 12, 2019.

DISCUSSION The court denies Defendants motion to seal without prejudice to renewing the motion upon a proper showing that permits the court to make the detailed findings that California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 requires.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

Generally, California Rules of Court, rules 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(1).) However, “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) The documents at issue are objections and responses in discovery proceedings before the discovery referee.

Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).) Citing California Rule of Court Rule 2.550 and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, Defendants argue that the right of public access does not apply to settlement figures reflected in petitions for court approval of minor’s compromises. Defendants’ position is without merit.

The court must make express findings to support sealing under Cal Rules of Court 2.550.

Because Plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.550, the motion is DENIED. The moving party is to give notice.

Defendant shall submit a form of order consistent with this ruling, and in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(e), within two weeks.

CRC 2.550, 2.551. The court finds Plaintiff demonstrates that the overriding interest of protecting the confidentiality of the confidential information contained within Exhibit A to the complaint overcomes the right of public access to the record and that this overriding interest supports sealing of the record. CRC 2.550(d)(1) and (2). NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) The requirements for an order sealing records are set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e). The order must specifically state the facts that support the findings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e)(1)(A); Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 84.) A failure to make the required findings will render the order deficient and sealing will not be supported. (Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

APPLICABLE LAW The Racing Board relies upon California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subdivision (d) [Rule 2.550], as the legal basis for this motion. The court disagrees Rule 2.550 is controlling here. The issue is whether for purposes of litigation how documents ought to be handled, and whether they should be deemed confidential for handling purposes. Rule 2.550, however, addresses whether documents filed in court should be deemed sealed and not subject to public view.

Rule 2.550 applies “to discovery materials that are . . . submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.” (CRC Rule 2.550(a)(3).) The Court thus proceeds to the factors enumerated above. The Court finds that insufficient argument has been presented to support sealing here, as the Court lacks a basis to make the requisite findings.

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (c) states: “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” Nevertheless, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rule of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1) states: “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

The motion meets the requirements of CRC 2.550 et seq. The court will execute defendant's form of order, which complies with CRC 2.550(d). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. =302/ac

LEGAL AUTHORITY California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 2.550(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” But a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551. CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see¿ McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. ¿(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.) Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent open court policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-10.)

(CRC 2.550(d).) Pursuant to Rule 2.550(e), [a]n 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. Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.

Rules of Court 2.550(d). Court records are presumed to be open. Cal Rules of Court 2.550(d). The burden is on the moving party to show compelling reasons for sealing records. Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 308, 317. An agreement to keep the settlement terms confidential can constitute an “overriding interest” that supports redacting the settlement amount. Courts have recognized that binding contracts not to disclose are “overriding interests.” Publicker Industries, Inc. v.