Plaintiff Nike USA, Inc.’s Motion Motion to Seal Documents Lodged Conditionally Under Seal by Defendants in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A 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.
(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)
A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)
Nike
Hearing Date
September 22, 2020
Type
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff Nike USA, Inc.’s Motion Motion to Seal Documents Lodged Conditionally Under Seal by Defendants in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A 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.
(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)
A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)
Nike