Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/01/2022 07:12 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Sino-Cruz,Deputy Clerk
Robert J. Liskey, Bar # 197287
The Liskey Law Firm
117 East Colorado Blvd., #600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone (626) 319-5817
Facsimile (626) 628-3019
robliskey@liskeylawfirm.com
Attomeys for judgment debtors,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxx
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
xxxx xxxxx, CASE NO.: BC699586
12
Plaintiff, [Hon. Stephanie M. Bowick]
13
14 vs. NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO SEAL
COURT FILE; ALTERNATIVELY, TO SEAL
15 xxxxxx xxxxxxx; xxxxxx PORTIONS OF THE RECORD;
SRIVISTAVA; and DOES | to 20, inclusive, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
16 AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF
Defendants. xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx IN SUPPORT
17
THEREOF
18
Date: November 22, 2022
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 19
20
21 Reservation # 286409954771
22 Complaint Filed: February 13, 2019
23
24
25 To ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
26 Please take notice that on November 22, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 19, of the Los
27 Angeles Superior Court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 91102, Defendants xxxxxx
28
ele
xxxxxxx and Guarav Srivistava hereby move the Court for an order sealing the record and file in the
instant case in its entirety.
This motion will be made on the grounds that this case has been resolved in its entirety and
that a companion case, LASC 21STCV28536 filed on August 3, 2021, involving the same persons
has also been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. As part of the resolution of that case, the
parties have stipulated that the records in this case and the companion case shall be sealed in their
entirety. (Stipulation and Order filed separately).
This motion to seal the record and file is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules
2.550 and 2.551, as well as this Court’s inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as
well as inherent power to control litigation before them. [Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI,
Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 1108, 1116-1117]. Inherent powers of the court are derived from the
10 state Constitution and are not confined by or dependent on statute. [Walker v. Superior Court (1991)
11 53 Cal. 3d 257, 267].
12 The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the accompanying attached declaration of
13 xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxx and the memorandum of points and authorities served and
filed herewith, on the records and file herein, and on such further evidence adduced at the hearing of
14
the motion.
th l-
15
16
Date: October 31, 2022
17 Robert J. Liskey, Attorney for Defendants/
Judgment debtors, xxxxxx xxxxxxx and xxxxxx
18 Srivistava
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2-
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
L Statement of. Facts-Which are for Background in that All Parties have Vehemently
Disputed Facts Attributed by One Party to the Other.
Defendants Guarav Srivistava (herein “Guarav”), his wife, xxxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”) and
Plaintiff xxxx xxxxx (“xxxxx”) were involved in a business deal in 2015. That deal resulted in a dispute,
which resulted in acrimonious litigation. While it might be understandable that a business dispute
might result in litigation, the litigation was between former friends and business associates where
personal and private information that should not be made public was learned by both sides over the
course of that relationship that was weaponized in the litigation in order to pressure one side or the
other to quickly resolve their disputes.
A judgment was ultimately entered in this action pursuant to a settlement agreement and
10 stipulation for judgment. That judgment has now been satisfied in full.
11 Paragraph 21 of the settlement agreement in this case provides that: “The parties agree that
12 they will not take any actions or make any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that in any
manner defames the other party (“Non-Disparagement clause”)”. The settlement agreement involved
13
in this case also contains a confidentiality and nondisclosure provision.
14
Defendant xxxxxx has engaged in and continues to engage in a variety of business dealings
15
around the globe and in April 2021 was finalizing the terms of a huge deal, in which xxxxxxx was a
16 named party (Guarav Dec. 2).
17 In April 2021, evidence surfaced that Plaintiff xxxxx may have breached the nondisparagement
18 clause in that the third party in a text, advised Guarav that xxxxx had made comments about him as
follows: “He is a man of dubious character and cannot be trusted,” “He is a thief and a con artist,”
19
“you should never do business with him,” and that she had “saved multiple people from falling in a
20
trap of doing business with this man.” Also, at the same time, in or around April of 2021, Guarav
21
received a call from an “unknown blocked number.” The person who placed the call stated that if
22 Guarav did not pay xxxxx $500,000.00, that her campaign to defame and harm Guarav and xxxxxxx
23 would not stop. (xxxxxx Dec. 3).
24 As a result of the statements made orally to the third party, a business deal that would have
25 netted Guarav and xxxxxxx a substantial sum of money was immediately terminated, and the third
party walked away from the pending deal. (xxxxxx Dec. 4).
26
Guarav and xxxxxxx rescinded the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment and
27
brought a companion case, LASC 21STCV28536 (“Companion Case”) on August 3, 2021 in which
28
Defendants in this case, as plaintiffs there, sought restitution and brought an equitable action to set
-3-
aside the judgment obtained pursuant to the settlement agreement and stipulation (Guarav Dec. 5).
Both cases have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties and another settlement
agreement has been executed by the parties in the companion case. That settlement agreement also
contains nondisparagement, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. And in furtherance of
resolving their disputes, as part of the resolution of these cases, the parties have stipulated that the
records in this case and the companion case should be sealed in their entirety. [Guarav Dec.{6;
(Stipulation filed separately)]
xxxxxx’s business dealings involve the exchange of confidential and secret information
necessary to meet or satisfy the national security needs of xxxxxx’s clients. Guarav meets with and
has obtained the confidence of many world leaders and national dignitaries that enable him to function
and work in this world because of his special information and knowledge. The trust and confidence
10 placed in him could be eroded if the allegations made in this case are publicly disclosed. The trust and
11 confidence in him could also be eroded if the character of his wife, Defendant xxxxxxx is impugned
12 because of her close connection and possible influence she would or could exert over her husband and
she is sometimes a party to the contract, therefore trust and confidence in her integrity could also be
13
eroded if the accusations in this case continue to remain public (Guarav Dec. 7).
14
Guarav and xxxxxxx vehemently disputed the claims and accusations made by Plaintiff xxxxx,
15
but nonetheless, apparently a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment was executed solely
16 on the advice of their prior counsel. xxxxxxx has disputed that she ever knew about or executed the
17 settlement agreement or stipulation for judgment. Both Guarav and xxxxxxx have disputed in this case
18 and the companion case that their signatures on the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment
19 are genuine (Guarav Dec. 8).
This motion is brought for an order sealing the record in this case in its entirety.
20
Il. THE COURT MAY ORDER RECORDS SEALED FROM PUBLIC VIEW
21
California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 provide that a record may be placed under
22 seal pursuant to a court order. Rule 2.550(d) provides that the Court may order that a record be
23 placed under seal if it finds that: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of
24 public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial
25 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
26
overriding interest.
27
The findings required under Rule of Court 2.550(d) reflect the test articulated by the
28
Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Ine. y. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178 (1999),
which applies to the sealing of records. In that case, the Supreme Court provided various examples
of “overriding interests” recognized by case law. Specifically, courts have found that various
statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted, may constitute
“overriding interests.” See NBC Subsidiary, 20 Cal. 4th at 1222 n. 46; see also Advisory Committee
Comment to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, para. 3 (noting that “the rules do not attempt to define
what may constitute ‘overriding interest,’ but leave this to case law”).
III. SEALING OF THE REY DECLARATION IS CONSISTENT WITH RULES OF COURT
AND CASE LAW
A. There Is an Overriding Interest in Protecting the Private and Confidential
Information of Petitioner and Non-Parties Contained in the Rey Declaration.
The California Constitution recognizes that “[a]ll people ... have inalienable rights. Among
10 these are ... pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Cost. Art. 1, § 1. The
11 privacy interests protected under Article I fall into two categories: “(1) interests in precluding the
12 dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (called informational privacy) and
(2) interest in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without
13
observation, intrusion, or interference (called autonomy privacy).” [Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic
14
Ass'n, (1995) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35]. If the interest alleged by the moving party falls into either of these
15
categories, then it is a “legally protected privacy interest.” /d. Petitioner’s right to privacy is an
16 “overriding interest” that California courts have recognized in sealing records. [See NBC Subsidiary
17 (KNBC-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178].
18 InIn re Marriage of Burkle, (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 163 the court stated: “We entertain
no doubt that, in appropriate circumstances, the right to privacy may be properly described as a
19
compelling or overriding interest.” Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “judicial records
20
may be sealed where the records will be used ‘to gratify spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
21 statements, or release trade secrets.’” [Samica Enters., Inc. v. Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc., (C.D. Cal. July
22 8, 2009) No. 2-06 CV 02800 ODW-CT, 2009 WL 10675237, at *2 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburgh, 23 F.3d
772, 787 (3d. Cir. 1994) (“[I]t is appropriate for courts to order confidentiality to prevent the infliction of
24
unnecessary or serious pain on parties who the court reasonably finds are entitled to such protection.”).
25 California courts also recognize that “it is appropriate to seal certain records when those
26 particular records contain highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing personal information about
27 individuals.” [People v. Jackson, (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1024 (sealing search warrant affidavit
that “contain[ed] graphic and detailed descriptions of [defendant’s] alleged sexual misconduct”). And
28
ese
Courts acknowledge “that a person’s medical history ... falls within the zone of informational privacy”
protected by the state and federal Constitutions. [People v. Martinez, (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 465, 474-
75).
Courts have inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers [Bauguess v. Paine
(1978) 22 Cal. 3d 626, 635] as well as inherent power to control litigation before them. [Western
Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 1108, 1116-1117]. Inherent powers of
the court are derived from the state Constitution and are not confined by or dependent on statute.
[Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 267].
Here, the record and the settlement agreement includes detailed, malicious, and false allegations
regarding highly sensitive, potentially embarrassing information about Defendants. “[S]urely the courts
are not powerless to prevent court files from becoming the conduits of disclosure of sensitive private
10 information. ...” [Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1069-70 (granting motion to seal records of
sensitive information “tangentially related to the litigation” and noting that “[cJourts have inherent
11
authority to strike scandalous and abusive statements in pleadings”).
12
“A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case.
13 Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already possesses copies of the records to be placed under
14 seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.” Cal.
15 Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2). Plaintiff is in possession of all documents contained in the Court file in
that she has either filed them, or been served with Defendant’s pleadings as and when they were filed with
16
the Court and Defendants seek an order sealing the entirety of the record from public view.
17
Defendants have an overriding privacy interest in protecting the private information that was made
18 public by filing such accusations and information in Court. And Plaintiff has entered into a settlement
19 agreement in the companion case and agreed to stipulate to an order sealing both court records. Thus, a
20 sealing order, sealing the entirety of the case is appropriate in that Defendants’ interests as set forth herein
override any public interest in reviewing salacious, private personal and financial information of any of the
21
parties.
22
B. The Overriding Interest Supports Sealing the Record.
23 The material filed in this case went far beyond what was needed or necessary to pursue a claim for
24 breach of a promissory note and guaranty and were not germane to any elements relevant to obtaining the
25 judgment or enforcing the judgment. The damaging material was placed in the public record without their
consent and not for any legitimate need, but for the purpose of disparaging and impugning Defendants’
26
character, and are tangential to the collection of a money judgment.s Therefore, there is no right to public
27
access to that content. [See Cassidy v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy, (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 620, 626 (sealing
28 records and finding “overriding interest ... in that these documents were not the subject of any adjudication
-6-
in this case, were placed in the public record without AIOT’s consent, and thus there is no right to public
access to these private documents ....”) (emphasis in original)].
“The claim that the subject of the litigation may be newsworthy—in effect, an argument that the
public has a generalized right to be informed—cannot serve as a substitute for a showing of specific utility
of public access to the information.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal. App. 4th 60, 105 (2007)
(citing NBC Subsidiary, 20 Cal. App. 4th at 1201).
Put simply, there is no utility in the public’s access to the confidential, inflammatory, and false
material in the court file and documents filed to pursue collection contain private financial and personal
information to weigh against Defendants’ overriding privacy interests.
C. Defendants’ Overriding Interests Will Be Prejudiced If the Record Is Not Sealed.
xxxxxx’s business dealings involve the exchange of confidential and secret information
10 necessary to meet or satisfy the national security needs of xxxxxx’s clients. Guarav meets with and
has obtained the confidence of many world leaders and national dignitaries that enable him to function
11
and work in this world because of his special information and knowledge. The trust and confidence
12
placed in him could be eroded if the allegations made in this case are publicly disclosed. The trust and
13 confidence in him could also be eroded if the character of his wife, Defendant xxxxxxx is impugned
14 because of her close connection and possible influence she would or could exert over her husband and
15 she is sometimes a party to the contract, therefore trust and confidence in her integrity could also be
16 eroded if the accusations in this case continue to remain public.
Guarav and xxxxxxx vehemently disputed the claims and accusations made by Plaintiff xxxxx,
17
but nonetheless, apparently a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment was executed solely
18
on the advice of their prior counsel. xxxxxxx has disputed that she ever knew about or executed the
19 settlement agreement or stipulation for judgment. Both Guarav and xxxxxxx have disputed in this case
20 and the companion case that their signatures on the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment
21 are genuine.
22 Both this case and the companion case have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.
Both settlement agreements contain nondisparagement, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions.
23
And in furtherance of resolving their disputes, as part of the resolution of these cases, the parties have
24
stipulated that the records in this case and the companion case should be sealed in their entirety.
25
Permitting public access to the information will irreparably damage Defendants’ reputation, their
26 family’s reputation, and their business interests. There would be no way to close the door.
27 CONCLUSION
28 By reason of the foregoing facts and authority, xxxxxx and xxxxxxx respectfully request that
-1-
this Court enter an order sealing the record and that this court grant them such other and further relief
1
as may be deemed proper.
Date: October 31, 2021 wth
Robert J. Liskey
Attorney for Defendants
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
Declaration of Gauray Srivastay:
I, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx declare as follows:
I am a defendant in the instant case along with my wife xxxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”). The facts
declared herein are of my own personal knowledge except as to those matters stated on information
and belief. As such I could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is made in support
of Defendants’ motion to seal.
1 A judgment was entered in this action pursuant to a settlement agreement and
stipulation for judgment, which has now been satisfied in full. Paragraph 21 of the
settlement agreement in this case provides that: “The parties agree that they will not
take any actions or make any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that in
any manner defames the other party (“Non-Disparagement clause”)”. The settlement
10
agreement involved in this case also contains a confidentiality and nondisclosure
11
provision.
12 I have engaged in and continue to engage in a variety of business dealings around the
13 globe and in April 2021 was finalizing the terms of a huge deal, in which my wife
14 Defendant xxxxxx xxxxxxx was a named party.
In April 2021, evidence surfaced that Plaintiff xxxx xxxxx (“xxxxx”) had made comments
15
about me as follows: “He is a man of dubious character and cannot be trusted,” “He is
16
a thief and a con artist,” “you should never do business with him,” and that she had
17
“saved multiple people from falling in a trap of doing business with this man.” Also, at
18 the same time, in or around April of 2021, I received a call from an “unknown blocked
19 number.” The person who placed the call stated that if I did not pay xxxxx $500,000.00,
20 that her campaign to defame and harm my wife and I would not stop.
21 As a result of the statements made orally to the third party, a business deal that would
have netted my wife and I a substantial sum of money was immediately terminated, and
22
the third party walked away from the pending deal.
23
My wife and I rescinded the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment and
24 brought a companion case, LASC 21STCV28536 (“Companion Case”) on August 3,
25 2021 in which we, as plaintiffs there, sought restitution and brought an equitable action
26 to set aside the judgment obtained pursuant to the settlement agreement and stipulation.
27 Both cases have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties and another settlement
agreement has been executed by the parties in the companion case. That settlement
28
-9-
agreement also contains nondisparagement, confidentiality and nondisclosure
provisions. And in furtherance of resolving their disputes, as part of the resolution of
these cases, the parties have agreed to stipulate that the records in this case and the
companion case should be sealed in their entirety.
My business dealings involve the exchange of confidential and secret information
necessary to meet or satisfy the national security needs of my clients. I meet with and
have obtained the confidence of many world leaders and national dignitaries that enable
me to function and work in this world because of my abilities, special information and
knowledge. The trust and confidence placed in me would be eroded if the allegations
made in this case are publicly disclosed. The trust and confidence placed in me could
also be eroded if the character of my wife, xxxxxx xxxxxxx is impugned because of her
10 close connection and possible influence she would or could exert over me, plus she is
ll sometimes a party to the contract, therefore trust and confidence in her integrity could
12 also be eroded if the accusations in this case continue to remain public.
My wife and I vehemently disputed the claims and accusations made by Plaintiff xxxxx
13
in this case, but nonetheless, apparently a settlement agreement and stipulation for
14
judgment was executed solely on the advice of our prior counsel. My wife, xxxxxx
15
xxxxxxx has disputed that she ever knew about or executed the settlement agreement or
16 stipulation for judgment. Both my wife and I have disputed in this case and the
li companion case that our signatures on the settlement agreement and stipulation for
18 judgment are genuine.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
20 is true and correct and executed this _31 day of October 7
21
22
23
xxxxxx Sriyéstava, Declarant
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Tam employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 117 East Colorado
Blvd., #600 Pasadena, CA 91105
On October 31, 2022, I served the following document: Notice of Motion and Motion
to Seal Court File
I served the documents on the following person(s) at the following addresses
(including fax numbers and email addresses, if applicable.)
Eitan Yehoshua AAA-LAW 18425 Burbank Blvd., Suite 712, Tarzana, Ca 91356
ey@ayapc.com; eservice@ayapc.com
_X__ (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Based on court order or an agreement of the
parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the
person(s) or entit(ies) at the electronic service address listed above.
Executed on October 31, 2022.
_X_ (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the
above is true and correct.
___ (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this court at whose direction the service was made.
/s/
Robert J. Liskey
Fie’
va
4 Journal Technologies Court Portal
Make a Reservation
xxxx xxxxx VS xxxxxx xxxxxxx ET AL
Case Number: BC699586 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Contractual Fraud
Date Filed: 2018-04-12 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 19
Reservation
Case Name: Case Number:
xxxx xxxxx VS xxxxxx xxxxxxx ET AL BC699586
Type: Status:
Motion to Seal (Record) RESERVED
Filing Party: Location:
xxxxxx xxxxxxx (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 19
Date/Time: Number of Motions:
11/22/2022 8:30 AM 1
Reservation ID: Confirmation Cade:
286409954771 CR-F4VUESR2NS5SGTDCJ3
Fees
Description Qty Amount
Motion to Seal (name extension) 60.00 60.00
Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1.65
TOTAL / $61.65
Payment
Amount: Type:
$61.65 Visa
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX3146 131376
=
Ss Pr int Receipt | + Reserve Another Hattie & View My Reservations
CL ast
Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.
Chat
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/01/2022 07:12 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Sino-Cruz,Deputy Clerk Robert J. Liskey, Bar # 197287 The Liskey Law Firm 117 East Colorado Blvd., #600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone (626) 319-5817 Facsimile (626) 628-3019 robliskey@liskeylawfirm.com Attomeys for judgment debtors, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 xxxx xxxxx, CASE NO.: BC699586 12 Plaintiff, [Hon. Stephanie M. Bowick] 13 14 vs. NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO SEAL COURT FILE; ALTERNATIVELY, TO SEAL 15 xxxxxx xxxxxxx; xxxxxx PORTIONS OF THE RECORD; SRIVISTAVA; and DOES | to 20, inclusive, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF Defendants. xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx IN SUPPORT 17 THEREOF 18 Date: November 22, 2022 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 19 20 21 Reservation # 286409954771 22 Complaint Filed: February 13, 2019 23 24 25 To ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 26 Please take notice that on November 22, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 19, of the Los 27 Angeles Superior Court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 91102, Defendants xxxxxx 28 ele xxxxxxx and Guarav Srivistava hereby move the Court for an order sealing the record and file in the instant case in its entirety. This motion will be made on the grounds that this case has been resolved in its entirety and that a companion case, LASC 21STCV28536 filed on August 3, 2021, involving the same persons has also been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. As part of the resolution of that case, the parties have stipulated that the records in this case and the companion case shall be sealed in their entirety. (Stipulation and Order filed separately). This motion to seal the record and file is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, as well as this Court’s inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before them. [Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 1108, 1116-1117]. Inherent powers of the court are derived from the 10 state Constitution and are not confined by or dependent on statute. [Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 11 53 Cal. 3d 257, 267]. 12 The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the accompanying attached declaration of 13 xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxx and the memorandum of points and authorities served and filed herewith, on the records and file herein, and on such further evidence adduced at the hearing of 14 the motion. th l- 15 16 Date: October 31, 2022 17 Robert J. Liskey, Attorney for Defendants/ Judgment debtors, xxxxxx xxxxxxx and xxxxxx 18 Srivistava 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2- Memorandum of Points and Authorities L Statement of. Facts-Which are for Background in that All Parties have Vehemently Disputed Facts Attributed by One Party to the Other. Defendants Guarav Srivistava (herein “Guarav”), his wife, xxxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”) and Plaintiff xxxx xxxxx (“xxxxx”) were involved in a business deal in 2015. That deal resulted in a dispute, which resulted in acrimonious litigation. While it might be understandable that a business dispute might result in litigation, the litigation was between former friends and business associates where personal and private information that should not be made public was learned by both sides over the course of that relationship that was weaponized in the litigation in order to pressure one side or the other to quickly resolve their disputes. A judgment was ultimately entered in this action pursuant to a settlement agreement and 10 stipulation for judgment. That judgment has now been satisfied in full. 11 Paragraph 21 of the settlement agreement in this case provides that: “The parties agree that 12 they will not take any actions or make any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that in any manner defames the other party (“Non-Disparagement clause”)”. The settlement agreement involved 13 in this case also contains a confidentiality and nondisclosure provision. 14 Defendant xxxxxx has engaged in and continues to engage in a variety of business dealings 15 around the globe and in April 2021 was finalizing the terms of a huge deal, in which xxxxxxx was a 16 named party (Guarav Dec. 2). 17 In April 2021, evidence surfaced that Plaintiff xxxxx may have breached the nondisparagement 18 clause in that the third party in a text, advised Guarav that xxxxx had made comments about him as follows: “He is a man of dubious character and cannot be trusted,” “He is a thief and a con artist,” 19 “you should never do business with him,” and that she had “saved multiple people from falling in a 20 trap of doing business with this man.” Also, at the same time, in or around April of 2021, Guarav 21 received a call from an “unknown blocked number.” The person who placed the call stated that if 22 Guarav did not pay xxxxx $500,000.00, that her campaign to defame and harm Guarav and xxxxxxx 23 would not stop. (xxxxxx Dec. 3). 24 As a result of the statements made orally to the third party, a business deal that would have 25 netted Guarav and xxxxxxx a substantial sum of money was immediately terminated, and the third party walked away from the pending deal. (xxxxxx Dec. 4). 26 Guarav and xxxxxxx rescinded the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment and 27 brought a companion case, LASC 21STCV28536 (“Companion Case”) on August 3, 2021 in which 28 Defendants in this case, as plaintiffs there, sought restitution and brought an equitable action to set -3- aside the judgment obtained pursuant to the settlement agreement and stipulation (Guarav Dec. 5). Both cases have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties and another settlement agreement has been executed by the parties in the companion case. That settlement agreement also contains nondisparagement, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. And in furtherance of resolving their disputes, as part of the resolution of these cases, the parties have stipulated that the records in this case and the companion case should be sealed in their entirety. [Guarav Dec.{6; (Stipulation filed separately)] xxxxxx’s business dealings involve the exchange of confidential and secret information necessary to meet or satisfy the national security needs of xxxxxx’s clients. Guarav meets with and has obtained the confidence of many world leaders and national dignitaries that enable him to function and work in this world because of his special information and knowledge. The trust and confidence 10 placed in him could be eroded if the allegations made in this case are publicly disclosed. The trust and 11 confidence in him could also be eroded if the character of his wife, Defendant xxxxxxx is impugned 12 because of her close connection and possible influence she would or could exert over her husband and she is sometimes a party to the contract, therefore trust and confidence in her integrity could also be 13 eroded if the accusations in this case continue to remain public (Guarav Dec. 7). 14 Guarav and xxxxxxx vehemently disputed the claims and accusations made by Plaintiff xxxxx, 15 but nonetheless, apparently a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment was executed solely 16 on the advice of their prior counsel. xxxxxxx has disputed that she ever knew about or executed the 17 settlement agreement or stipulation for judgment. Both Guarav and xxxxxxx have disputed in this case 18 and the companion case that their signatures on the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment 19 are genuine (Guarav Dec. 8). This motion is brought for an order sealing the record in this case in its entirety. 20 Il. THE COURT MAY ORDER RECORDS SEALED FROM PUBLIC VIEW 21 California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 provide that a record may be placed under 22 seal pursuant to a court order. Rule 2.550(d) provides that the Court may order that a record be 23 placed under seal if it finds that: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of 24 public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial 25 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 26 overriding interest. 27 The findings required under Rule of Court 2.550(d) reflect the test articulated by the 28 Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Ine. y. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178 (1999), which applies to the sealing of records. In that case, the Supreme Court provided various examples of “overriding interests” recognized by case law. Specifically, courts have found that various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted, may constitute “overriding interests.” See NBC Subsidiary, 20 Cal. 4th at 1222 n. 46; see also Advisory Committee Comment to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, para. 3 (noting that “the rules do not attempt to define what may constitute ‘overriding interest,’ but leave this to case law”). III. SEALING OF THE REY DECLARATION IS CONSISTENT WITH RULES OF COURT AND CASE LAW A. There Is an Overriding Interest in Protecting the Private and Confidential Information of Petitioner and Non-Parties Contained in the Rey Declaration. The California Constitution recognizes that “[a]ll people ... have inalienable rights. Among 10 these are ... pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Cost. Art. 1, § 1. The 11 privacy interests protected under Article I fall into two categories: “(1) interests in precluding the 12 dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (called informational privacy) and (2) interest in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without 13 observation, intrusion, or interference (called autonomy privacy).” [Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic 14 Ass'n, (1995) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35]. If the interest alleged by the moving party falls into either of these 15 categories, then it is a “legally protected privacy interest.” /d. Petitioner’s right to privacy is an 16 “overriding interest” that California courts have recognized in sealing records. [See NBC Subsidiary 17 (KNBC-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178]. 18 InIn re Marriage of Burkle, (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 163 the court stated: “We entertain no doubt that, in appropriate circumstances, the right to privacy may be properly described as a 19 compelling or overriding interest.” Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “judicial records 20 may be sealed where the records will be used ‘to gratify spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 21 statements, or release trade secrets.’” [Samica Enters., Inc. v. Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc., (C.D. Cal. July 22 8, 2009) No. 2-06 CV 02800 ODW-CT, 2009 WL 10675237, at *2 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburgh, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d. Cir. 1994) (“[I]t is appropriate for courts to order confidentiality to prevent the infliction of 24 unnecessary or serious pain on parties who the court reasonably finds are entitled to such protection.”). 25 California courts also recognize that “it is appropriate to seal certain records when those 26 particular records contain highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing personal information about 27 individuals.” [People v. Jackson, (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1024 (sealing search warrant affidavit that “contain[ed] graphic and detailed descriptions of [defendant’s] alleged sexual misconduct”). And 28 ese Courts acknowledge “that a person’s medical history ... falls within the zone of informational privacy” protected by the state and federal Constitutions. [People v. Martinez, (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 465, 474- 75). Courts have inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers [Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 626, 635] as well as inherent power to control litigation before them. [Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 1108, 1116-1117]. Inherent powers of the court are derived from the state Constitution and are not confined by or dependent on statute. [Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 267]. Here, the record and the settlement agreement includes detailed, malicious, and false allegations regarding highly sensitive, potentially embarrassing information about Defendants. “[S]urely the courts are not powerless to prevent court files from becoming the conduits of disclosure of sensitive private 10 information. ...” [Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1069-70 (granting motion to seal records of sensitive information “tangentially related to the litigation” and noting that “[cJourts have inherent 11 authority to strike scandalous and abusive statements in pleadings”). 12 “A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. 13 Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already possesses copies of the records to be placed under 14 seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.” Cal. 15 Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2). Plaintiff is in possession of all documents contained in the Court file in that she has either filed them, or been served with Defendant’s pleadings as and when they were filed with 16 the Court and Defendants seek an order sealing the entirety of the record from public view. 17 Defendants have an overriding privacy interest in protecting the private information that was made 18 public by filing such accusations and information in Court. And Plaintiff has entered into a settlement 19 agreement in the companion case and agreed to stipulate to an order sealing both court records. Thus, a 20 sealing order, sealing the entirety of the case is appropriate in that Defendants’ interests as set forth herein override any public interest in reviewing salacious, private personal and financial information of any of the 21 parties. 22 B. The Overriding Interest Supports Sealing the Record. 23 The material filed in this case went far beyond what was needed or necessary to pursue a claim for 24 breach of a promissory note and guaranty and were not germane to any elements relevant to obtaining the 25 judgment or enforcing the judgment. The damaging material was placed in the public record without their consent and not for any legitimate need, but for the purpose of disparaging and impugning Defendants’ 26 character, and are tangential to the collection of a money judgment.s Therefore, there is no right to public 27 access to that content. [See Cassidy v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy, (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 620, 626 (sealing 28 records and finding “overriding interest ... in that these documents were not the subject of any adjudication -6- in this case, were placed in the public record without AIOT’s consent, and thus there is no right to public access to these private documents ....”) (emphasis in original)]. “The claim that the subject of the litigation may be newsworthy—in effect, an argument that the public has a generalized right to be informed—cannot serve as a substitute for a showing of specific utility of public access to the information.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal. App. 4th 60, 105 (2007) (citing NBC Subsidiary, 20 Cal. App. 4th at 1201). Put simply, there is no utility in the public’s access to the confidential, inflammatory, and false material in the court file and documents filed to pursue collection contain private financial and personal information to weigh against Defendants’ overriding privacy interests. C. Defendants’ Overriding Interests Will Be Prejudiced If the Record Is Not Sealed. xxxxxx’s business dealings involve the exchange of confidential and secret information 10 necessary to meet or satisfy the national security needs of xxxxxx’s clients. Guarav meets with and has obtained the confidence of many world leaders and national dignitaries that enable him to function 11 and work in this world because of his special information and knowledge. The trust and confidence 12 placed in him could be eroded if the allegations made in this case are publicly disclosed. The trust and 13 confidence in him could also be eroded if the character of his wife, Defendant xxxxxxx is impugned 14 because of her close connection and possible influence she would or could exert over her husband and 15 she is sometimes a party to the contract, therefore trust and confidence in her integrity could also be 16 eroded if the accusations in this case continue to remain public. Guarav and xxxxxxx vehemently disputed the claims and accusations made by Plaintiff xxxxx, 17 but nonetheless, apparently a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment was executed solely 18 on the advice of their prior counsel. xxxxxxx has disputed that she ever knew about or executed the 19 settlement agreement or stipulation for judgment. Both Guarav and xxxxxxx have disputed in this case 20 and the companion case that their signatures on the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment 21 are genuine. 22 Both this case and the companion case have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. Both settlement agreements contain nondisparagement, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. 23 And in furtherance of resolving their disputes, as part of the resolution of these cases, the parties have 24 stipulated that the records in this case and the companion case should be sealed in their entirety. 25 Permitting public access to the information will irreparably damage Defendants’ reputation, their 26 family’s reputation, and their business interests. There would be no way to close the door. 27 CONCLUSION 28 By reason of the foregoing facts and authority, xxxxxx and xxxxxxx respectfully request that -1- this Court enter an order sealing the record and that this court grant them such other and further relief 1 as may be deemed proper. Date: October 31, 2021 wth Robert J. Liskey Attorney for Defendants 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- Declaration of Gauray Srivastay: I, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx declare as follows: I am a defendant in the instant case along with my wife xxxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”). The facts declared herein are of my own personal knowledge except as to those matters stated on information and belief. As such I could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is made in support of Defendants’ motion to seal. 1 A judgment was entered in this action pursuant to a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment, which has now been satisfied in full. Paragraph 21 of the settlement agreement in this case provides that: “The parties agree that they will not take any actions or make any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that in any manner defames the other party (“Non-Disparagement clause”)”. The settlement 10 agreement involved in this case also contains a confidentiality and nondisclosure 11 provision. 12 I have engaged in and continue to engage in a variety of business dealings around the 13 globe and in April 2021 was finalizing the terms of a huge deal, in which my wife 14 Defendant xxxxxx xxxxxxx was a named party. In April 2021, evidence surfaced that Plaintiff xxxx xxxxx (“xxxxx”) had made comments 15 about me as follows: “He is a man of dubious character and cannot be trusted,” “He is 16 a thief and a con artist,” “you should never do business with him,” and that she had 17 “saved multiple people from falling in a trap of doing business with this man.” Also, at 18 the same time, in or around April of 2021, I received a call from an “unknown blocked 19 number.” The person who placed the call stated that if I did not pay xxxxx $500,000.00, 20 that her campaign to defame and harm my wife and I would not stop. 21 As a result of the statements made orally to the third party, a business deal that would have netted my wife and I a substantial sum of money was immediately terminated, and 22 the third party walked away from the pending deal. 23 My wife and I rescinded the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment and 24 brought a companion case, LASC 21STCV28536 (“Companion Case”) on August 3, 25 2021 in which we, as plaintiffs there, sought restitution and brought an equitable action 26 to set aside the judgment obtained pursuant to the settlement agreement and stipulation. 27 Both cases have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties and another settlement agreement has been executed by the parties in the companion case. That settlement 28 -9- agreement also contains nondisparagement, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. And in furtherance of resolving their disputes, as part of the resolution of these cases, the parties have agreed to stipulate that the records in this case and the companion case should be sealed in their entirety. My business dealings involve the exchange of confidential and secret information necessary to meet or satisfy the national security needs of my clients. I meet with and have obtained the confidence of many world leaders and national dignitaries that enable me to function and work in this world because of my abilities, special information and knowledge. The trust and confidence placed in me would be eroded if the allegations made in this case are publicly disclosed. The trust and confidence placed in me could also be eroded if the character of my wife, xxxxxx xxxxxxx is impugned because of her 10 close connection and possible influence she would or could exert over me, plus she is ll sometimes a party to the contract, therefore trust and confidence in her integrity could 12 also be eroded if the accusations in this case continue to remain public. My wife and I vehemently disputed the claims and accusations made by Plaintiff xxxxx 13 in this case, but nonetheless, apparently a settlement agreement and stipulation for 14 judgment was executed solely on the advice of our prior counsel. My wife, xxxxxx 15 xxxxxxx has disputed that she ever knew about or executed the settlement agreement or 16 stipulation for judgment. Both my wife and I have disputed in this case and the li companion case that our signatures on the settlement agreement and stipulation for 18 judgment are genuine. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 20 is true and correct and executed this _31 day of October 7 21 22 23 xxxxxx Sriyéstava, Declarant 24 25 26 27 28 -10- PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Tam employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 117 East Colorado Blvd., #600 Pasadena, CA 91105 On October 31, 2022, I served the following document: Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal Court File I served the documents on the following person(s) at the following addresses (including fax numbers and email addresses, if applicable.) Eitan Yehoshua AAA-LAW 18425 Burbank Blvd., Suite 712, Tarzana, Ca 91356 ey@ayapc.com; eservice@ayapc.com _X__ (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Based on court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) or entit(ies) at the electronic service address listed above. Executed on October 31, 2022. _X_ (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ___ (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. /s/ Robert J. Liskey Fie’ va 4 Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation xxxx xxxxx VS xxxxxx xxxxxxx ET AL Case Number: BC699586 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Contractual Fraud Date Filed: 2018-04-12 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 19 Reservation Case Name: Case Number: xxxx xxxxx VS xxxxxx xxxxxxx ET AL BC699586 Type: Status: Motion to Seal (Record) RESERVED Filing Party: Location: xxxxxx xxxxxxx (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 19 Date/Time: Number of Motions: 11/22/2022 8:30 AM 1 Reservation ID: Confirmation Cade: 286409954771 CR-F4VUESR2NS5SGTDCJ3 Fees Description Qty Amount Motion to Seal (name extension) 60.00 60.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1.65 TOTAL / $61.65 Payment Amount: Type: $61.65 Visa Account Number: Authorization: XXXX3146 131376 = Ss Pr int Receipt | + Reserve Another Hattie & View My Reservations CL ast Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Chat