Preview
1 CLAIRE E. COCHRAN (SBN 222529)
GREGORY W. STEVENS (ADMITTED PRO HOC VICE)
2 LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN, P.C. ELECTRONICALLY
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 1250
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 F I L E D
TELEPHONE: (415) 580- 6019 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 FACSIMILE: (415) 745- 3301
07/29/2021
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Nathan Peter Runyon Deputy Clerk
6
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
NATHAN PETER RUNYON, CASE NO. CGC-19-581099
12
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
13 AND MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
v. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
14 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER
PAYWARD, INC., a California Corporation SEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
15 d/b/a KRAKEN; and KAISER NG an AND AUTHORITIES
individual and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
16 [Filed Concurrently with Declaration of
Defendant. Claire Cochran In Support of Plaintiff’s
17 Notice of Motion and Motion to File Exhibits
in Support of Opposition to Summary
18 Adjudication Under Seal, and [Proposed]
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to File
19 Exhibits In Support of Its Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary
20 Adjudication Under Seal]
21 Date: August 12, 2021
Time: 9:30 a.m.
22 Dept.: 302
23 The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
24 Action Filed: November 26, 2019
Trial Date: September 13, 2021
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August 12, 2021, or as soon thereafter as the matter
3 may be heard in Department 302 of the above-entitled Court, located at 400 McAllister St., San
4 Francisco, CA 94102, Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon, (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby do move for an
5 order sealing the following documents in Support of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
6 Summary Adjudication:
7 1) The Deposition of Kaiser Ng and all Exhibits, taken on July 20, 2021, which is
8 attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
9 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
10 2) The Deposition of Steve Christie and all Exhibits, taken on July 22, 2021, which is
11 attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
12 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication
13 3) The Deposition of Connie Wong and all Exhibits, taken on May 21, 2021, which is
14 attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
15 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
16 4) The June 30, 2019 Board Consent Minutes which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the
17 Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
18 Summary Adjudication;
19 5) Payward’s Responses to Form Interrogatory, dated March 20, 2020, which is
20 attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
21 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
22 6) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’
23 Motion for Summary Adjudication; and
24 7) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed
25 Material Facts.
26 This motion is made pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551, and is made on
27 the grounds that the documents sought to be sealed contain information that Defendants contend
28 constitutes trade secrets, the disclosure of which, Defendants contend, would destroy their value
2
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 by placing them in the public domain; and also contain information about the confidential
2 financial affairs of non-parties to this action. It is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion,
3 the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran,
4 and the [Proposed] Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents in Support of His
5 Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication Under Seal.
6
7
8 Dated: July 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
9 LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN
10
11 By:
Claire E. Cochran, Esq.
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff applies for an order of this Court directing that the following documents be filed
4 under seal :
5 1) The Deposition of Kaiser Ng and all Exhibits, taken on July 20, 2021, which is
6 attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
7 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
8 2) The Deposition of Steve Christie and all Exhibits, taken on July 22, 2021, which is
9 attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
10 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
11 3) The Deposition of Connie Wong and all Exhibits, taken on May 21, 2021, which is
12 attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
13 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
14 4) The June 30, 2019 Board Consent Minutes which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the
15 Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
16 Summary Adjudication;
17 5) Payward’s Responses to Form Interrogatory, dated March20, 2020, which is
18 attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition
19 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication;
20 6) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’
21 Motion for Summary Adjudication; and
22 7) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed
23 Material Facts.
24 These documents have been designated “Confidential” under the parties’ Stipulation and
25 Protective Order, entered on March 4, 2021 (“Stipulated Protective Order”). Defendants contend
26 that they contain references and contain trade secrets, as well as sensitive personal, financial, and
27 business information of third parties, because it contains information that, if made public, would
28 be and third parties’ confidential financial information that is not part of the public domain. See
4
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 Declaration of Kaiser Ng in Support of Defendant’s Motion to File Motion for Summary
2 Adjudication Under Seal, dated June 1, 2021 (“Ng Sealing Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 4. As such, it is
3 appropriate for sealing as contemplated by the Stipulated Protective Order, and California Rules of
4 Court 2.550 and 2.551.
5 II. LEGAL STANDARD
6 Plaintiff seeks to seal the documents listed above, which have been designated as
7 “Confidential,” and which contains non-public, trade secret information that are entitled to
8 confidential treatment under applicable law. The sealing of these documents is needed pursuant to
9 the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Sealing this information is narrowly tailored, and no less
10 restrictive means exist.
11 California Rule of Court 2.550 authorizes the Court to order that a record be filed under
12 seal if it finds facts that establish:
13 1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the
record;
14 2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the
15 documents are not sealed
4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
16 5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
California Rule of Court 2.550(d).
17
While California courts have recognized a common law right of access to public
18
documents, including judicial records, “[t]he weight accorded to the common law presumption of
19
access depends…on the role of the material at issue in the exercise of judicial power.”
20
Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483–85, 180
21
Cal.Rptr.3d 234 (citations omitted). “Accordingly, when evaluating whether records should be
22
sealed…courts engage in a balancing analysis, weighing the presumption of access against a
23
variety of competing interests.” Id. at 484 (citations omitted). The requirements for this balancing
24
analysis were set forth by the California Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.
25
Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337. There, the Court held
26
that before court documents may be sealed, there must exist: (1) an overriding interest supporting
27
closure and/or sealing; (2) a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent
28
5
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 closure and/or sealing; (3) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the
2 overriding interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.”
3 Id. at 1217–18.
4
III. ANALYSIS
5
Based on the foregoing legal principles, Plaintiff respectfully requests the sealing of the
6
deposition transcripts and documents identified more specifically above in the Notice of Motion,
7
which, Defendants contend, contain confidential information in the form of proprietary trade
8
secrets and/or confidential, private financial information. On the record before the Court, it is
9
clear that (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the
10
record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) substantial probability exists that
11
the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the documents are not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing
12
is narrowly tailored; and (5) o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. E.g.,
13
California Rule of Court 2.550(d); see also, e.g., NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc., 20 Cal.4th
14
1178, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337.
15
IV. CONCLUSION
16
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order that these
17
depositions, their exhibits, the other documents attached to Claire Cochran’s Declaration,
18
Plaintiff’s Memorandum and Plaintiff’s Responses to Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to
19
Motion for Summary Adjudication be filed under seal.
20
21
Dated: July 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
22
LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN
23
24
By:
25 Claire E. Cochran, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon
26
27
28
6
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
2
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California, I am over the age of
3 eighteen years and am not a party to this action; my business address is Law Offices of Claire
Cochran, 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA. 94111, and my business email address is
4 jackie@clairecochranlegal.com.
5 On July 29, 2021, I served a copy of the foregoing document(s) described as
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT
6 OF OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER SEAL; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the interested parties in this action at their last known
7 address as set forth below by taking the action described below:
8 Withers Worldwide
Kimberly Pallen
9 Christopher N. LaVigne
505 Sansome Street, 2nd Floor,
10 San Francisco, CA 94111
11 Christopher.LaVigne@withersworldwide.com
Kimberly.pallen@withersworldwide.com
12 Attorneys for Defendants
13 BY MAIL: I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed
as set forth above, and deposited each envelope in the mail at San Francisco, California.
14 Each envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed
envelope(s) designated by the carrier, with delivery fees provided for, and addressed as
16 set forth above, and deposited the above-described document(s) with in the ordinary
course of business, by depositing the document(s) in a facility regularly maintained by
17 the carrier or delivering the document(s) to an authorized driver for the carrier.
18 BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed
envelope(s), and caused personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the
19 person(s) at the address(es) set forth above.
20 þ BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I served the above-mentioned document electronically on
the parties listed at the email addresses above and, to the best of my knowledge, the
21 transmission was complete and without error in that I did not receive an electronic
notification to the contrary.
22
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
24 true and correct.
25 Executed on July 29, 2021, at San Francisco, California.
26
27 Jackie Zwirn
28
7
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Preview
1 CLAIRE E. COCHRAN (SBN 222529) GREGORY W. STEVENS (ADMITTED PRO HOC VICE) 2 LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN, P.C. ELECTRONICALLY 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 1250 3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 F I L E D TELEPHONE: (415) 580- 6019 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 FACSIMILE: (415) 745- 3301 07/29/2021 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Nathan Peter Runyon Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 NATHAN PETER RUNYON, CASE NO. CGC-19-581099 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION 13 AND MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS v. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 14 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER PAYWARD, INC., a California Corporation SEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 15 d/b/a KRAKEN; and KAISER NG an AND AUTHORITIES individual and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 16 [Filed Concurrently with Declaration of Defendant. Claire Cochran In Support of Plaintiff’s 17 Notice of Motion and Motion to File Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Summary 18 Adjudication Under Seal, and [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to File 19 Exhibits In Support of Its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 20 Adjudication Under Seal] 21 Date: August 12, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. 22 Dept.: 302 23 The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 24 Action Filed: November 26, 2019 Trial Date: September 13, 2021 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August 12, 2021, or as soon thereafter as the matter 3 may be heard in Department 302 of the above-entitled Court, located at 400 McAllister St., San 4 Francisco, CA 94102, Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon, (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby do move for an 5 order sealing the following documents in Support of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 6 Summary Adjudication: 7 1) The Deposition of Kaiser Ng and all Exhibits, taken on July 20, 2021, which is 8 attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 9 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 10 2) The Deposition of Steve Christie and all Exhibits, taken on July 22, 2021, which is 11 attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 12 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 13 3) The Deposition of Connie Wong and all Exhibits, taken on May 21, 2021, which is 14 attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 15 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 16 4) The June 30, 2019 Board Consent Minutes which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the 17 Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 18 Summary Adjudication; 19 5) Payward’s Responses to Form Interrogatory, dated March 20, 2020, which is 20 attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 21 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 22 6) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ 23 Motion for Summary Adjudication; and 24 7) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed 25 Material Facts. 26 This motion is made pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551, and is made on 27 the grounds that the documents sought to be sealed contain information that Defendants contend 28 constitutes trade secrets, the disclosure of which, Defendants contend, would destroy their value 2 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 1 by placing them in the public domain; and also contain information about the confidential 2 financial affairs of non-parties to this action. It is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, 3 the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran, 4 and the [Proposed] Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents in Support of His 5 Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication Under Seal. 6 7 8 Dated: July 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 9 LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN 10 11 By: Claire E. Cochran, Esq. 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff applies for an order of this Court directing that the following documents be filed 4 under seal : 5 1) The Deposition of Kaiser Ng and all Exhibits, taken on July 20, 2021, which is 6 attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 7 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 8 2) The Deposition of Steve Christie and all Exhibits, taken on July 22, 2021, which is 9 attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 10 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 11 3) The Deposition of Connie Wong and all Exhibits, taken on May 21, 2021, which is 12 attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 13 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 14 4) The June 30, 2019 Board Consent Minutes which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the 15 Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 16 Summary Adjudication; 17 5) Payward’s Responses to Form Interrogatory, dated March20, 2020, which is 18 attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Claire E. Cochran in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 19 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication; 20 6) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ 21 Motion for Summary Adjudication; and 22 7) Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed 23 Material Facts. 24 These documents have been designated “Confidential” under the parties’ Stipulation and 25 Protective Order, entered on March 4, 2021 (“Stipulated Protective Order”). Defendants contend 26 that they contain references and contain trade secrets, as well as sensitive personal, financial, and 27 business information of third parties, because it contains information that, if made public, would 28 be and third parties’ confidential financial information that is not part of the public domain. See 4 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 1 Declaration of Kaiser Ng in Support of Defendant’s Motion to File Motion for Summary 2 Adjudication Under Seal, dated June 1, 2021 (“Ng Sealing Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 4. As such, it is 3 appropriate for sealing as contemplated by the Stipulated Protective Order, and California Rules of 4 Court 2.550 and 2.551. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Plaintiff seeks to seal the documents listed above, which have been designated as 7 “Confidential,” and which contains non-public, trade secret information that are entitled to 8 confidential treatment under applicable law. The sealing of these documents is needed pursuant to 9 the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Sealing this information is narrowly tailored, and no less 10 restrictive means exist. 11 California Rule of Court 2.550 authorizes the Court to order that a record be filed under 12 seal if it finds facts that establish: 13 1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; 14 2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record; 3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the 15 documents are not sealed 4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 16 5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. California Rule of Court 2.550(d). 17 While California courts have recognized a common law right of access to public 18 documents, including judicial records, “[t]he weight accorded to the common law presumption of 19 access depends…on the role of the material at issue in the exercise of judicial power.” 20 Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483–85, 180 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 (citations omitted). “Accordingly, when evaluating whether records should be 22 sealed…courts engage in a balancing analysis, weighing the presumption of access against a 23 variety of competing interests.” Id. at 484 (citations omitted). The requirements for this balancing 24 analysis were set forth by the California Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. 25 Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337. There, the Court held 26 that before court documents may be sealed, there must exist: (1) an overriding interest supporting 27 closure and/or sealing; (2) a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent 28 5 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 1 closure and/or sealing; (3) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the 2 overriding interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.” 3 Id. at 1217–18. 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 Based on the foregoing legal principles, Plaintiff respectfully requests the sealing of the 6 deposition transcripts and documents identified more specifically above in the Notice of Motion, 7 which, Defendants contend, contain confidential information in the form of proprietary trade 8 secrets and/or confidential, private financial information. On the record before the Court, it is 9 clear that (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the 10 record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) substantial probability exists that 11 the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the documents are not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing 12 is narrowly tailored; and (5) o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. E.g., 13 California Rule of Court 2.550(d); see also, e.g., NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc., 20 Cal.4th 14 1178, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order that these 17 depositions, their exhibits, the other documents attached to Claire Cochran’s Declaration, 18 Plaintiff’s Memorandum and Plaintiff’s Responses to Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to 19 Motion for Summary Adjudication be filed under seal. 20 21 Dated: July 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 22 LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN 23 24 By: 25 Claire E. Cochran, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon 26 27 28 6 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California, I am over the age of 3 eighteen years and am not a party to this action; my business address is Law Offices of Claire Cochran, 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA. 94111, and my business email address is 4 jackie@clairecochranlegal.com. 5 On July 29, 2021, I served a copy of the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT 6 OF OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER SEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the interested parties in this action at their last known 7 address as set forth below by taking the action described below: 8 Withers Worldwide Kimberly Pallen 9 Christopher N. LaVigne 505 Sansome Street, 2nd Floor, 10 San Francisco, CA 94111 11 Christopher.LaVigne@withersworldwide.com Kimberly.pallen@withersworldwide.com 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 BY MAIL: I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above, and deposited each envelope in the mail at San Francisco, California. 14 Each envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. 15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s) designated by the carrier, with delivery fees provided for, and addressed as 16 set forth above, and deposited the above-described document(s) with in the ordinary course of business, by depositing the document(s) in a facility regularly maintained by 17 the carrier or delivering the document(s) to an authorized driver for the carrier. 18 BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s), and caused personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the 19 person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. 20 þ BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I served the above-mentioned document electronically on the parties listed at the email addresses above and, to the best of my knowledge, the 21 transmission was complete and without error in that I did not receive an electronic notification to the contrary. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 24 true and correct. 25 Executed on July 29, 2021, at San Francisco, California. 26 27 Jackie Zwirn 28 7 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL