Preview
10/21/2020
BRIAN W. NEWCOMB, C.S.B. State Bar ¹ 55156
Attorney at Law
770 Menlo Avenue, Suite 101
Menlo Park, CA 94025
br[nawnewcombS ama[l.corn
Telephone: (650) 322-7780
Facsimile: (650) 322-7740
Attorney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc.,
Dba Wehmeyer Custom Homes, Robert C. Wehmeyer, Cross-Complainants Jeffrey Bordin,
Gregorio Martinez and Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company
7
ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. State Bar ¹ 196478
8 IAN P. WILSON, ESQ. State Bar ¹ 271075
ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
9 210 North Fourth Street, Suite 350
10
San Jose, CA 95112
afinchSericksenarbuthnot.corn
11 iwi[sonQericksenarbuthnot.corn
Telephone: (408) 286-0880
12 Facsimile: (408) 286-0337
Attorney for Defendant R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
13 dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
17 MA'1'THEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES,
CASE NO. 18CIV00846
Plaintiffs,
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF
vs. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
20
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD
21 dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES; [RULES [g 2.550 AND 2.551]
ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, an individual; (STIPULATED)
22 AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY
COMPANY; and DOES Ithrough 20, Date: 11/17/20
23 inclusive, Time: I:30 p.m.
Dept: L/M
24 Defendants.
Action Filed: 2/20/18
25 Trial Date: 11/12/2019
26
27
28
-I-
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [$ $ 2.550 AND 2.551] (S11PULATED)
I I. INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant and Cross-Complainant R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba
3 WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES (hereinafter "RCWC") will and hereby does submit an
4 [amended] memorandum of points and authorities in support of its [Amended] Motion for a
3 Permanent Seal of certain items currently on record with this Court, pursuant to California Rules
6 of Court)S 2.550 and 2.551 and further pursuant to an attached stipulated agreement by and
between the parties to this litigation to permanently seal the requested items contained within its
8 [Amended] Notice of Motion and Motion for Permanent Seal and within the [Amended]
9 Declaration of Ian P. Wilson and this [Amended] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
10 support of this Motion. RC Wehmeyer, Inc. previously filed motion papers that already
11 contained confidential redacted portions, pending Court permission for permanent seal. This
motion seeks to permanent seal those redactions and to further seal those portions that were
inadvertently disclosed that the parties had previously agreed to be confidential. RCWC is
14 seeking an order sealing these items, because thc private and confidential nature of what is
is contained therein, could be used inter alia to harm the Parties'espective professional reputations
16 and, because of this, the Parties have further stipulated to RCWC requesting the seal. In addition,
17 the request is narrowly tailored to include only personal or financial information and/or contain
18 information related to the confidential settlement agreement.
19 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20 This matter involves a construction defect dispute, resulting from alleged
21 construction/remodel work performed at plaintiffs Matthew and Nicole Squires'hereinafter,
22 "Plaintiffs'") home located in San Mateo, California. Plaintiffs, Defendants and Cross-
23 Complainants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., dba Wehmeyer Custom Homes, Robert C.
24 Wehmeyer, and Defendant American Conuactors Indemnity Company (hereinafter "the Parties" )
23 agreed to terms of settlement and executed a global settlement agreement and release of all claims
26 (hereinafter "SAR") on or about March 11, 2020 in the above-titled matter; the understanding
22 between the parties during the negotiation process was that the terms of the SAR were/are to
28 remain private and confidential per Evid. Code $ 1152, et. seq. and per several agreed-upon
-2-
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMANENTLY sEAL REcoRD [RULEs [$ $ 2.630 AND 2.5611 (sTIPULATED)
paragraphs related to non-disparagement, non-disclosure and confidentiality contained within
z SAR. (See Declaration of lan P. Wilson at $2.) Plaintiffs are currently prepared to file a Request
3 for Dismissal of all claims in the matter with prejudice (hereinafter, "Dismissal" ). (Decl. of
4 Wilson, $ 3.)
5 The parties have determined that prior to dismissal, the private and confidential SAR
6 and limited portions of the moving papers in support of the SAR's enforcement are now publicly
available on this Court's Register of Actions and that the Parties will be potentially harmed by the
s presence of the terms contained therein, unless a permanent seal is granted: on the one hand,
9 RCWC, and Plaintiffs in equal measure, will be potentially harmed inter alia by the use of certain
io private and confidential information related to this matter to damage each Parties'espective
professional reputation(s), unless RCWC's request to seal is granted, and on the other hand, the
Plaintiffs will be unable to seek a dismissal of the matter until the same occurs. (Decl. of Wilson,
1[4.)
14 Accordingly, in response to a series of subsequent conversations between co-defense
15 counsel and counsel for Plaintiffs, the parties are now in agreement that the private and
i6 confidential SAR shall remain permanently redacted and under seal prior to the filing of said
17 Dismissal. (Decl. of Wilson, 1[5.) The Parties are in further, specific agreeance that in addition to
is seeking an Order from this Court permanently sealing the contents of the SAR, the Parties, also
19 by way of stipulated Motion, will seek an Order from this Court permanently redacting and/or
zo otherwise sealing limited portions of the following items presently on file 34dth this Court prior to
the filing of said Dismissal:
22 NICOLE AND MATTHEW SQUIRES
23 ~ March 11, 2020 Notice of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application
24 for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement;
25
~ March 11, 2020 Declaration of Matthew Squires in Support of Plaintiff s Ex Parte
26
Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Enforce Settlement
27 Agreement;
28
-3-
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [$ $ 2.550 AND 2.551] (STIPULATED)
~ March 11, 2020 Declaration of Michael Mengarclli in Support of Plaintiffs'x Parte
Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement;
~ March 11, 2020 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement (Code Civ. Proc. $ 664.6). (Decl. of Wilson, $'1[6-9.)
5 On or around September 22, 2020, RCWC filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order
Shortening Time on its Motion to Permanently Seal the Record, which is already on file with this
Court and which already contains confidential redacted portions, pending Court permission for
8 permanent seal. (Decl. of Wilson, t[10.)
9 This Court, in its discretion, denied that motion and offered further guidance within its
10 Order, namely: this Court is unlikely to grant a request to seal each entire document; RCWC has
taken that to mean that a wholesale permanent seal of the record, beyond a fully confidential
i2 SAR, is improper, given the strong public interest in preserving records. (Decl. of Wilson, ttt[11-
12.)
14 Per the Order, and in an abundance of caution, counsel amended the moving papers to
ensure that only certain limited portions of the record be sealed and narrowly tailored the request
to include only information that mentions personal or financial information or items directly
17 related to the terms of settlement. (Decl. of Wilson, 1[13.)
18 Moreover, it goes without saying that maintaining the confidentiality of a stipulated
19 settlement, like the one here, is of the utmost importance to the Parties, and that there is a strong
20 public interest in encouraging settlement as a means to resolve a case, while minimizing much of
21 the negative aspects of litigation, and, as a result, those private terms must remain private.
22 Accordingly, the Parties agree that this Motion is both reasonable and proper in this situation and
28 the narrowly tailored request to seal the record is also reasonable. (Decl. of Wilson, tt14.)
24 III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Under California Rulc of Court, a court may permit a document to be filed under seal if it
26 expressly finds that:
27
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to
28
the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A
-4-
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [I$ 2.550 AND 2.551] (STIPULATED)
substantial 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 overriding interest.
(Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(d); see also Savagllo v. IVal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149
Cal.App.4tl 88, 597.) As discussed further below, all five criteria are met here.
"The privacy of a settlement is generally understood and accepted in our legal system,
7
which favors settlement and therefore supports attendant needs for confidentiality. [Citations.] II]
private settlement agreement is entitled to at least as much privacy protection as a bank account
9
or tax information...." (Hi nsitaw IVinkler v. Sup. Ct. ( I 996) 5 ICal.App.4th 233, 24 1 .)
10
Here, the parties to the SAR have an overriding interest in maintaining the confidentiality
of the terms of settlement, and this overcomes the right of public access to the record and
supports the proposed sealing. A substantial probability exists that the parties overriding interest
to maintain the SAR as confidential wilI be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, because the
confidential terms of the SAR will necessarily remain a public record on this Court's Register of
Actions. (Allison v. Nat'1 Med. Ventures, (2013) Cal. Super. LEXIS 433, *16-19.)
16
In addition to the above, the confidentialitv of the neaotiated settlement and its terms was
a m ate ri a I
t e rm o f the s e tt I e m e n t an d
s e a I i n z th e
s e tt I e m e n t aa r ee m e n t w i I I
m ai n t ai n
c o m n I i an c e
with the settlement aareement that was annarentlv inadvertentlv not followed. (Decl. of Wilson,
1[2.) Sealing the agreement that was inadvertently disclosed will serve the interests of judicial
economy and preserve the negotiated confidential terms of the agreement.
21
Given that the motion only seeks to seal verv limited nortions of the record and those
references and documents that are part of the negotiated settlement that was aareed to be
23
confidential by the parties, its limited scope preserves the public interest in review of the
remainder of the record. Therefore, the proposed sealing of the SAR is tailored to the privacy
interest that the Plaintiffs, RCWC and the remaining Party Defendants have worked to maintain
in attempting to ensure that settlement be kept confidential. No less restrictive means exist to
achieve this overriding privacy interest. Moreover, Plaintiffs agree that the Parties will be
-5-
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [I$ 2.550 AND 2.5511 (STIPULATED)
1 prejudiced in equal measure if the court does not grant this motion and stipulate that the listed
2 items be sealed. Accordingly, the motion to seal should be granted.
3 The Parties Have Stinulated to a Permanent Seal
4 Again, the Parties further stinulated to brine the Motion to Seal on or around Aupust 7,
5 2020 because, as stated above, the parties believe it to be both necessary and proper for the
sealing of private and confidential information, which could be used to harm the Parties in equal
measure and considering, too, that relief sought is reasonable and within this Court's discretion.
8 (Decl. of Wilson, $ 5-9.) Although it is within this Court's discretion to ultimately accept or deny
9 this request for a permanent seal, the Parties have not given it any reason to refuse to accept the
10 attached stipulation and have instead provided this Court compelling enough reason to grant this
request.
12 IV. CONCLUSION
13 For the foregoing reasons, RCWC respectfully requests that the items requested above and
i4 in further attached supporting documents be sealed and the Parties'rivacy be maintained.
15
Dated: October 21, 2020 THNOT
16
17
18 ALBIISPI'
[Alga W
FINCH, III,
SON, ESQ.
ES~
19 Attorney[[ for Defendant R.C. WEHMEYER
CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba
20 WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [)I 2.550 AND 2.551] (STIPULATED)
Preview
10/21/2020 BRIAN W. NEWCOMB, C.S.B. State Bar ¹ 55156 Attorney at Law 770 Menlo Avenue, Suite 101 Menlo Park, CA 94025 br[nawnewcombS ama[l.corn Telephone: (650) 322-7780 Facsimile: (650) 322-7740 Attorney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., Dba Wehmeyer Custom Homes, Robert C. Wehmeyer, Cross-Complainants Jeffrey Bordin, Gregorio Martinez and Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company 7 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. State Bar ¹ 196478 8 IAN P. WILSON, ESQ. State Bar ¹ 271075 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT 9 210 North Fourth Street, Suite 350 10 San Jose, CA 95112 afinchSericksenarbuthnot.corn 11 iwi[sonQericksenarbuthnot.corn Telephone: (408) 286-0880 12 Facsimile: (408) 286-0337 Attorney for Defendant R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., 13 dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 17 MA'1'THEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, CASE NO. 18CIV00846 Plaintiffs, AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF vs. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 20 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD 21 dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES; [RULES [g 2.550 AND 2.551] ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, an individual; (STIPULATED) 22 AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY; and DOES Ithrough 20, Date: 11/17/20 23 inclusive, Time: I:30 p.m. Dept: L/M 24 Defendants. Action Filed: 2/20/18 25 Trial Date: 11/12/2019 26 27 28 -I- AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [$ $ 2.550 AND 2.551] (S11PULATED) I I. INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant and Cross-Complainant R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba 3 WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES (hereinafter "RCWC") will and hereby does submit an 4 [amended] memorandum of points and authorities in support of its [Amended] Motion for a 3 Permanent Seal of certain items currently on record with this Court, pursuant to California Rules 6 of Court)S 2.550 and 2.551 and further pursuant to an attached stipulated agreement by and between the parties to this litigation to permanently seal the requested items contained within its 8 [Amended] Notice of Motion and Motion for Permanent Seal and within the [Amended] 9 Declaration of Ian P. Wilson and this [Amended] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 10 support of this Motion. RC Wehmeyer, Inc. previously filed motion papers that already 11 contained confidential redacted portions, pending Court permission for permanent seal. This motion seeks to permanent seal those redactions and to further seal those portions that were inadvertently disclosed that the parties had previously agreed to be confidential. RCWC is 14 seeking an order sealing these items, because thc private and confidential nature of what is is contained therein, could be used inter alia to harm the Parties'espective professional reputations 16 and, because of this, the Parties have further stipulated to RCWC requesting the seal. In addition, 17 the request is narrowly tailored to include only personal or financial information and/or contain 18 information related to the confidential settlement agreement. 19 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20 This matter involves a construction defect dispute, resulting from alleged 21 construction/remodel work performed at plaintiffs Matthew and Nicole Squires'hereinafter, 22 "Plaintiffs'") home located in San Mateo, California. Plaintiffs, Defendants and Cross- 23 Complainants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., dba Wehmeyer Custom Homes, Robert C. 24 Wehmeyer, and Defendant American Conuactors Indemnity Company (hereinafter "the Parties" ) 23 agreed to terms of settlement and executed a global settlement agreement and release of all claims 26 (hereinafter "SAR") on or about March 11, 2020 in the above-titled matter; the understanding 22 between the parties during the negotiation process was that the terms of the SAR were/are to 28 remain private and confidential per Evid. Code $ 1152, et. seq. and per several agreed-upon -2- AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMANENTLY sEAL REcoRD [RULEs [$ $ 2.630 AND 2.5611 (sTIPULATED) paragraphs related to non-disparagement, non-disclosure and confidentiality contained within z SAR. (See Declaration of lan P. Wilson at $2.) Plaintiffs are currently prepared to file a Request 3 for Dismissal of all claims in the matter with prejudice (hereinafter, "Dismissal" ). (Decl. of 4 Wilson, $ 3.) 5 The parties have determined that prior to dismissal, the private and confidential SAR 6 and limited portions of the moving papers in support of the SAR's enforcement are now publicly available on this Court's Register of Actions and that the Parties will be potentially harmed by the s presence of the terms contained therein, unless a permanent seal is granted: on the one hand, 9 RCWC, and Plaintiffs in equal measure, will be potentially harmed inter alia by the use of certain io private and confidential information related to this matter to damage each Parties'espective professional reputation(s), unless RCWC's request to seal is granted, and on the other hand, the Plaintiffs will be unable to seek a dismissal of the matter until the same occurs. (Decl. of Wilson, 1[4.) 14 Accordingly, in response to a series of subsequent conversations between co-defense 15 counsel and counsel for Plaintiffs, the parties are now in agreement that the private and i6 confidential SAR shall remain permanently redacted and under seal prior to the filing of said 17 Dismissal. (Decl. of Wilson, 1[5.) The Parties are in further, specific agreeance that in addition to is seeking an Order from this Court permanently sealing the contents of the SAR, the Parties, also 19 by way of stipulated Motion, will seek an Order from this Court permanently redacting and/or zo otherwise sealing limited portions of the following items presently on file 34dth this Court prior to the filing of said Dismissal: 22 NICOLE AND MATTHEW SQUIRES 23 ~ March 11, 2020 Notice of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application 24 for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; 25 ~ March 11, 2020 Declaration of Matthew Squires in Support of Plaintiff s Ex Parte 26 Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Enforce Settlement 27 Agreement; 28 -3- AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [$ $ 2.550 AND 2.551] (STIPULATED) ~ March 11, 2020 Declaration of Michael Mengarclli in Support of Plaintiffs'x Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; ~ March 11, 2020 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Code Civ. Proc. $ 664.6). (Decl. of Wilson, $'1[6-9.) 5 On or around September 22, 2020, RCWC filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time on its Motion to Permanently Seal the Record, which is already on file with this Court and which already contains confidential redacted portions, pending Court permission for 8 permanent seal. (Decl. of Wilson, t[10.) 9 This Court, in its discretion, denied that motion and offered further guidance within its 10 Order, namely: this Court is unlikely to grant a request to seal each entire document; RCWC has taken that to mean that a wholesale permanent seal of the record, beyond a fully confidential i2 SAR, is improper, given the strong public interest in preserving records. (Decl. of Wilson, ttt[11- 12.) 14 Per the Order, and in an abundance of caution, counsel amended the moving papers to ensure that only certain limited portions of the record be sealed and narrowly tailored the request to include only information that mentions personal or financial information or items directly 17 related to the terms of settlement. (Decl. of Wilson, 1[13.) 18 Moreover, it goes without saying that maintaining the confidentiality of a stipulated 19 settlement, like the one here, is of the utmost importance to the Parties, and that there is a strong 20 public interest in encouraging settlement as a means to resolve a case, while minimizing much of 21 the negative aspects of litigation, and, as a result, those private terms must remain private. 22 Accordingly, the Parties agree that this Motion is both reasonable and proper in this situation and 28 the narrowly tailored request to seal the record is also reasonable. (Decl. of Wilson, tt14.) 24 III. LEGAL DISCUSSION Under California Rulc of Court, a court may permit a document to be filed under seal if it 26 expressly finds that: 27 (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to 28 the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A -4- AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [I$ 2.550 AND 2.551] (STIPULATED) substantial 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 overriding interest. (Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(d); see also Savagllo v. IVal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4tl 88, 597.) As discussed further below, all five criteria are met here. "The privacy of a settlement is generally understood and accepted in our legal system, 7 which favors settlement and therefore supports attendant needs for confidentiality. [Citations.] II] private settlement agreement is entitled to at least as much privacy protection as a bank account 9 or tax information...." (Hi nsitaw IVinkler v. Sup. Ct. ( I 996) 5 ICal.App.4th 233, 24 1 .) 10 Here, the parties to the SAR have an overriding interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the terms of settlement, and this overcomes the right of public access to the record and supports the proposed sealing. A substantial probability exists that the parties overriding interest to maintain the SAR as confidential wilI be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, because the confidential terms of the SAR will necessarily remain a public record on this Court's Register of Actions. (Allison v. Nat'1 Med. Ventures, (2013) Cal. Super. LEXIS 433, *16-19.) 16 In addition to the above, the confidentialitv of the neaotiated settlement and its terms was a m ate ri a I t e rm o f the s e tt I e m e n t an d s e a I i n z th e s e tt I e m e n t aa r ee m e n t w i I I m ai n t ai n c o m n I i an c e with the settlement aareement that was annarentlv inadvertentlv not followed. (Decl. of Wilson, 1[2.) Sealing the agreement that was inadvertently disclosed will serve the interests of judicial economy and preserve the negotiated confidential terms of the agreement. 21 Given that the motion only seeks to seal verv limited nortions of the record and those references and documents that are part of the negotiated settlement that was aareed to be 23 confidential by the parties, its limited scope preserves the public interest in review of the remainder of the record. Therefore, the proposed sealing of the SAR is tailored to the privacy interest that the Plaintiffs, RCWC and the remaining Party Defendants have worked to maintain in attempting to ensure that settlement be kept confidential. No less restrictive means exist to achieve this overriding privacy interest. Moreover, Plaintiffs agree that the Parties will be -5- AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [I$ 2.550 AND 2.5511 (STIPULATED) 1 prejudiced in equal measure if the court does not grant this motion and stipulate that the listed 2 items be sealed. Accordingly, the motion to seal should be granted. 3 The Parties Have Stinulated to a Permanent Seal 4 Again, the Parties further stinulated to brine the Motion to Seal on or around Aupust 7, 5 2020 because, as stated above, the parties believe it to be both necessary and proper for the sealing of private and confidential information, which could be used to harm the Parties in equal measure and considering, too, that relief sought is reasonable and within this Court's discretion. 8 (Decl. of Wilson, $ 5-9.) Although it is within this Court's discretion to ultimately accept or deny 9 this request for a permanent seal, the Parties have not given it any reason to refuse to accept the 10 attached stipulation and have instead provided this Court compelling enough reason to grant this request. 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, RCWC respectfully requests that the items requested above and i4 in further attached supporting documents be sealed and the Parties'rivacy be maintained. 15 Dated: October 21, 2020 THNOT 16 17 18 ALBIISPI' [Alga W FINCH, III, SON, ESQ. ES~ 19 Attorney[[ for Defendant R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba 20 WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMANENTLY SEAL RECORD [RULES [)I 2.550 AND 2.551] (STIPULATED)