Preview
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA
jpenn@hinshawlaw.com
SARA E. FRANKS (SBN 345940)
sfranks@hinshawlaw.com
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
Telephone: 213-680-2800
Facsimile: 213-614-7399
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity
Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio
Group, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. 16CV300096
Plaintiff Assigned to: Dept. 19, The Honorable
Theodore C. Zayner
vs.
CROSS DEFENDANTS’REPLY IN
MARIA CANUL, SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL
Defendant
MARIA CANUL Date: October 25, 2023
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Cross-Complainant, Dept.: 19
vs.
Complaint Filed: September 20, 2016
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Cross-Complaint Filed: February 19, 2019
Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive,
Cross Defendants.
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. hereby
submit their Reply Brief in Support of Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Seal.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
2800
1045141 314928254.v1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Cross Complainant Maria Canul (“Canul” or “Cross-Complainant”) asserts that Cross
Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Investments Group,
Inc. (collectively, the “Cross Defendants”) motion to seal certain confidential records
procedurally improper and does not comply with the requirements of California Rule of Court
2.550(d). However, while Canul generally cites to California Rule of Court 2.551 to support her
argument that Cross Defendants’ motion is procedurally improper, the rule does not state that the
declaration submitted in support of a motion to seal must be by a party Additionally, the Confidential
Material filed conditionally under seal by Canul is, for the purposes of this litigation, the unredacted
version and Cross Defendants are not requesting further redactions, but a full sealing of the material.
Further, Cross Defendants have shown that the Confidential Material contains confidential,
proprietary, and ensitive information of such a quality that has been held by California courts to
justify sealing of a court record. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court, 110 Cal. App.
4th 1273, 1286 (2003).
CROSS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER
Despite Canul’s assertions to the contrary, the California Rules of Court do not require the
submission of a declaration a party in support of a motion to seal. California Rule of Court 2.551
simply requires a party requesting a record be filed under seal to submit a motion accompanied by
a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Cal. R. Court
2.551(b)(1). Nowhere in the rule does it state that the declaration must be by the party, just that it
contain facts sufficient to justify sealing. And, the declaration of Justin M. Penn does contain facts
sufficient to justify sealing. The declaration states that, as the attorney for Cross Defendants, Justin
M. Penn is familiar with the facts set forth in the declaration. The declaration states that the
Confidential Material constitutes business policies and other proprietary documents which are not
publicly available. This alone constitutes sufficient facts to justify sealing as California court
ordinarily w seal documents relating to business operations where public revelation would
prejudice the legitimate interests of a partyUniversal , 110 Cal. App. 4th at 1286. Business policies
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA
ROSS-DEFENDANT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
2800
1045141 314928254.v1
which are proprietary and not generally available to the public are documents whose revelation would
prejudice the legitimate interests of a party and would prejudice Velocityif publicly revealed in this
case.
As to Cross Defendants not serving Cross Complainant with complete, unredacted versions
of the Confidential Material, Cross Defendants motion to seal is regards to the documents lodged
conditionally under seal by Cross Complainant herself. These documents were originally produced
in the version submitted by Canul to the Court in support of her motion for summary judgment and
Canul has not demanded a fully unredacted version throughout the pendency of the litigation and has
not indicated a need for an unredacted version. Canul is aware of the contents of the documents as
she is the one who has presented them as evidence in her Motion for Summary Judgment. alifornia
Rule of Court 2.551(b)(2) more applicable to a situation where the party moving to seal is
requesting additional redactions to the Confidential Material redactions beyond those present in
the original production. For all intents and purposes, the Confidential Material lodged conditionally
under seal by Cross Complainant is the unredacted version, at least for the purposes of this litigation.
Because the Confidential Material lodged conditionally under seal is, in essence, the unredacted
version of the documents for purposes of this litigation and because Cross Defendants are not
requesting additional redactions but instead requesting a full sealing of the documents, Cross
Defendants were not required to submit different versions of the Confidential Material and their
motion to seal is procedurally proper.
CROSS DEFENDANTS HAVE SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 2.550(d)
Cross Defendants have established in their motion to seal that sealing of the Confidential
Material is necessary to protect the proprietary business information of Cross Defendants and
prevent prejudice from occurring through release of this information. Release of the information
would impact Cross Defendants’ competitive market position. The fact that the Confidential
Material has already been redacted does not diminish the proprietary nature of the remainder of the
material nor does it diminish the risk of prejudice from the material’s release. Additionally, the
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA
ROSS EFENDANT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
2800
1045141 314928254.v1
revelation of some of the Confidential Material in prior litigation should not be dispositive of the
outcome of the motion to seal in this case. If this Court determines that the Confidential Material
contains proprietary business information such that there will be prejudice to Cross Defendants’
overriding interest in keeping it private, then this determination should guide the decision to seal the
Confidential Material, not whether the material was not properly designated as confidential in the
past. The Confidential Material was designated as confidential in this case and this designation
represents Cross Defendants’ position on the revelation of the material for this litigation that the
Confidential Material contains proprietary business information and that revelation of this
information prejudice Cross Defendants’ interests.
CONCLUSION
The Confidential Material contains information that, if revealed to the public, would
prejudice Cross Defendants as it would reveal proprietary business information. Thus, Cross
Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant its Motion to Seal the Confidential Material.
DATED: October 11, 2023 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
By: /s/ Justin M. Penn
Justin M. Penn
Sara E. Franks
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant
Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross
Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA
ROSS EFENDANT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
2800
1045141 314928254.v1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X Action
Case No. 16CV300096
(STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within actions; my business address is 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600,
LosAngeles, CA 90071
October 11, 2023, I served the document(s) entitle CROSS DEFENDANTS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SEAL on the interested
parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as
stated below
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY ONE LEGAL ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION): I caused each document to be sent
by electronic transmission through One Legal through the user interface at www.onelegal.com to
all email addresses on the list maintained by One Legal.
BY E MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION): Based on a court order or an
agreement of the parties to accept service by e mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
document(s) to be sent to the person[s] at the e mail address[es] set forth herein. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful. See Cal.R.Ct.R. 2060
eclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 11, at Los Angeles , California.
/s/ Gloria Valles
Gloria V. Valles
1045141 309681129.v1
SERVICE LIST
Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X Action
Case No. 6CV300096
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Complainant
Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) MARIA CANUL
Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854)
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
West Santa Clara Street
San Jose, California 9511
Telephone Number: (408) 294
Facsimile Number: (408) 294
Email Address:
fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com
matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com
1045141 309681129.v1
Preview
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA jpenn@hinshawlaw.com SARA E. FRANKS (SBN 345940) sfranks@hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 Telephone: 213-680-2800 Facsimile: 213-614-7399 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. 16CV300096 Plaintiff Assigned to: Dept. 19, The Honorable Theodore C. Zayner vs. CROSS DEFENDANTS’REPLY IN MARIA CANUL, SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL Defendant MARIA CANUL Date: October 25, 2023 Time: 1:30 p.m. Cross-Complainant, Dept.: 19 vs. Complaint Filed: September 20, 2016 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Cross-Complaint Filed: February 19, 2019 Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive, Cross Defendants. TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. hereby submit their Reply Brief in Support of Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Seal. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL 2800 1045141 314928254.v1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Cross Complainant Maria Canul (“Canul” or “Cross-Complainant”) asserts that Cross Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Investments Group, Inc. (collectively, the “Cross Defendants”) motion to seal certain confidential records procedurally improper and does not comply with the requirements of California Rule of Court 2.550(d). However, while Canul generally cites to California Rule of Court 2.551 to support her argument that Cross Defendants’ motion is procedurally improper, the rule does not state that the declaration submitted in support of a motion to seal must be by a party Additionally, the Confidential Material filed conditionally under seal by Canul is, for the purposes of this litigation, the unredacted version and Cross Defendants are not requesting further redactions, but a full sealing of the material. Further, Cross Defendants have shown that the Confidential Material contains confidential, proprietary, and ensitive information of such a quality that has been held by California courts to justify sealing of a court record. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1286 (2003). CROSS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER Despite Canul’s assertions to the contrary, the California Rules of Court do not require the submission of a declaration a party in support of a motion to seal. California Rule of Court 2.551 simply requires a party requesting a record be filed under seal to submit a motion accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Cal. R. Court 2.551(b)(1). Nowhere in the rule does it state that the declaration must be by the party, just that it contain facts sufficient to justify sealing. And, the declaration of Justin M. Penn does contain facts sufficient to justify sealing. The declaration states that, as the attorney for Cross Defendants, Justin M. Penn is familiar with the facts set forth in the declaration. The declaration states that the Confidential Material constitutes business policies and other proprietary documents which are not publicly available. This alone constitutes sufficient facts to justify sealing as California court ordinarily w seal documents relating to business operations where public revelation would prejudice the legitimate interests of a partyUniversal , 110 Cal. App. 4th at 1286. Business policies HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA ROSS-DEFENDANT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL 2800 1045141 314928254.v1 which are proprietary and not generally available to the public are documents whose revelation would prejudice the legitimate interests of a party and would prejudice Velocityif publicly revealed in this case. As to Cross Defendants not serving Cross Complainant with complete, unredacted versions of the Confidential Material, Cross Defendants motion to seal is regards to the documents lodged conditionally under seal by Cross Complainant herself. These documents were originally produced in the version submitted by Canul to the Court in support of her motion for summary judgment and Canul has not demanded a fully unredacted version throughout the pendency of the litigation and has not indicated a need for an unredacted version. Canul is aware of the contents of the documents as she is the one who has presented them as evidence in her Motion for Summary Judgment. alifornia Rule of Court 2.551(b)(2) more applicable to a situation where the party moving to seal is requesting additional redactions to the Confidential Material redactions beyond those present in the original production. For all intents and purposes, the Confidential Material lodged conditionally under seal by Cross Complainant is the unredacted version, at least for the purposes of this litigation. Because the Confidential Material lodged conditionally under seal is, in essence, the unredacted version of the documents for purposes of this litigation and because Cross Defendants are not requesting additional redactions but instead requesting a full sealing of the documents, Cross Defendants were not required to submit different versions of the Confidential Material and their motion to seal is procedurally proper. CROSS DEFENDANTS HAVE SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 2.550(d) Cross Defendants have established in their motion to seal that sealing of the Confidential Material is necessary to protect the proprietary business information of Cross Defendants and prevent prejudice from occurring through release of this information. Release of the information would impact Cross Defendants’ competitive market position. The fact that the Confidential Material has already been redacted does not diminish the proprietary nature of the remainder of the material nor does it diminish the risk of prejudice from the material’s release. Additionally, the HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA ROSS EFENDANT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL 2800 1045141 314928254.v1 revelation of some of the Confidential Material in prior litigation should not be dispositive of the outcome of the motion to seal in this case. If this Court determines that the Confidential Material contains proprietary business information such that there will be prejudice to Cross Defendants’ overriding interest in keeping it private, then this determination should guide the decision to seal the Confidential Material, not whether the material was not properly designated as confidential in the past. The Confidential Material was designated as confidential in this case and this designation represents Cross Defendants’ position on the revelation of the material for this litigation that the Confidential Material contains proprietary business information and that revelation of this information prejudice Cross Defendants’ interests. CONCLUSION The Confidential Material contains information that, if revealed to the public, would prejudice Cross Defendants as it would reveal proprietary business information. Thus, Cross Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant its Motion to Seal the Confidential Material. DATED: October 11, 2023 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP By: /s/ Justin M. Penn Justin M. Penn Sara E. Franks Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA ROSS EFENDANT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL 2800 1045141 314928254.v1 PROOF OF SERVICE Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X Action Case No. 16CV300096 (STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within actions; my business address is 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600, LosAngeles, CA 90071 October 11, 2023, I served the document(s) entitle CROSS DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SEAL on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY ONE LEGAL ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION): I caused each document to be sent by electronic transmission through One Legal through the user interface at www.onelegal.com to all email addresses on the list maintained by One Legal. BY E MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION): Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person[s] at the e mail address[es] set forth herein. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. See Cal.R.Ct.R. 2060 eclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 11, at Los Angeles , California. /s/ Gloria Valles Gloria V. Valles 1045141 309681129.v1 SERVICE LIST Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X Action Case No. 6CV300096 Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Complainant Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) MARIA CANUL Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. West Santa Clara Street San Jose, California 9511 Telephone Number: (408) 294 Facsimile Number: (408) 294 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com 1045141 309681129.v1