Motion to Seal
In opposition, Plaintiff does not deny that Section 871.24 is applicable to this case. However, Plaintiff contends that, because the statute does not expressly state that compliance must be pled, there is no pleading requirement. In addition, Plaintiff contends that the statute was in fact complied with prior to the filing of the Complaint.
While the statute does not address the pleading requirements, courts interpreting statutes in other contexts have held that compliance with statutory prerequisites is an element that must be pled by the plaintiff. (See, e.g., Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 365, 371 (pleading in PAGA action); Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1345- 46 (pleading requirement in actions for FEHA violations).
Accordingly, the motion is granted. Defendant to give notice
105 Abinante vs. Collins
25-01457284 1. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice x 2 Plaintiffs Dr. Matthew Abinante, D.O., Rume Health, LLC, and Rume Medical Group, Inc. move this Court for orders granting the Applications of Kelly B. Kramer and Hiral D. Mehta for Admission Pro Hac Vice as counsel herein. (ROAs 369, 370). Motions are granted per CRC 9.40(a).
2. Case Management Conference Moving party to give notice.
106 Prime Healthcare Services - Garden Grove, LLC vs. Motion to Seal
Optumcare Management, LLC
23-01357480 Defendant OptumCare Management, LLC moves for an order sealing Exhibits G, K, M, N, O, P, and Q to the Wood Declaration in support of Optum’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8, Exhibits A, C, F, G, H, and K to the Poth Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3, and Exhibits 5-7, 13, 15, 17, and 18 to the Wood Declaration in support of Optum’s Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3 and Addendum to Optum’s Motion in Limine No.
7.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Exhibits G, K, 5, 6, and 7 to the Wood Declarations and Exhibits A, C, F, H, and K to the Poth Declaration include references to patient names and account numbers. This information is confidential and protected and there is no public interest in this information that overrides the patients’ right to privacy. (Manela v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1150; Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1070.) If the exhibits are not sealed, the right to privacy of these nonparty patients will be prejudiced and the requested sealing is narrowly tailored. Thus, the Motion as to Exhibits G, K, 5, 6, and 7 of the Wood Declarations and Exhibits A, C, F, H, and K to the Poth Declaration is GRANTED.
Exhibits M, N, O, P, Q, 13, 15, 17, and 18 to the Wood Declarations and Exhibit G to the Poth Declaration contain information regarding analytical methods, reimbursement approaches, pricing methodology, and benchmarking analyses. Optum contends disclosure of this nonpublic information would provide competitors insight into nonpublic methodologies, contractual arrangements, and business strategy.
When disclosure of private and confidential financial information relating to the business operations of a party would interfere with that party’s ability to compete in the marketplace, a sealing order may be appropriate. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286.) Additionally, “[c]ourts have found that the protecting of trade secrets is an interest that can support sealing records in a civil proceeding.” (McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)
Optum’s requested sealing is narrowly tailored to those exhibits that contain proprietary and sensitive business information and there is no public interest in this information that overrides the parties’ interests. Thus, the Motion as to Exhibits M, N, O, P, Q, 13, 15, 17, and 18 to the Wood Declarations and Exhibit G to the Poth Declaration is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.
107 Szeto vs. Woo
19-01087212 Motion for Attorney Fees Defendants/cross-complainants Kent Salveson and EQD LLC (“EQD”) move for an order granting them an award of attorney’s fees against plaintiff/crossdefendant Gene Szeto, jointly and severally with his counsel Shun C. Chen, in the sum of $30,247.80 in conjunction with their opposition to Szeto’s anti- SLAPP motion and $55,000.00 in conjunction with Szeto’s unsuccessful appeal of the denial of the anti- SLAPP motion.
“If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion,