ENTERTAINMENT COUNCIL, LLC d/b/a CRUNCH DIGITAL v. CANVA PTY LTD.

reason Defendant's argument to limit in temporal scope Plaintiff's new causes of action fails outright is because facts that occurred after the filing of the Complaint on November 12, 2025 are what triggered the significance of Defendant's prior representations at the time of the lease transaction and otherwise prior to the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff had no way of knowing, prior to the November 12, 2025 filing of the Complaint, that Defendant later would additionally dishonor its prior representations and obligations and violate more laws.

Thus, the entire sequence of factual events only became significant when Defendant violated more laws after November 12, 2025. Thus, the entirety of the factual sequence must be allowed to be included." (Reply, 3:12-19.) BMW fails to demonstrate that it will experience real prejudice if the Court does not deny or limit Plaintiff's request for leave to file the proposed FAC. BMW claims prejudice, but does not explain how or why it will be prejudiced. Moreover, Plaintiff's reply adequately refutes BMW's argument, demonstrating that it would be unreasonable to limit the scope of the FAC.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff complied with the necessary procedural requirements and BMW does not demonstrate cognizable prejudice, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the FAC.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: September 1, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 ENTERTAINMENT COUNCIL, LLC d/b/a CRUNCH DIGITAL, Plaintiff, vs. CANVA PTY LTD., Defendant. | Case No.: |

| | Hearing Date: | September 1, 2026 | | Hearing Time: | 8:30 a.m. | | [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT CANVA PTY LTD.'S MOTION TO SEAL | | AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION | | | | Background On June 25, 2026, Plaintiff Entertainment Council, LLC d/b/a Crunch Digital ("Crunch") filed this action against Defendant Canva Pty Ltd. ("Canva "), alleging four causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) quantum meruit, and (4) declaratory relief.

On May 21, 2026, Canva filed a cross-complaint against Crunch, alleging four causes of action for (1) violation of California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) declaratory relief. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Canva now moves to seal portions of its answer and cross-complaint. Crunch did not file an opposition.

Legal Standard

Generally, "[u] nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open." (¿ Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c) ¿ .) If the presumption of access applies, " [t]he 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. " (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) ¿ .)

Discussion

As an initial matter, it does not appear that Canva lodged unredacted copies of the Cross-Complaint and Answer with the Court. The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4), "[t]he party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal."

It does not appear that the subject records were lodged with the Court when the instant motion was made, or that the records were previously lodged. Nor do Canva's moving papers discuss good cause for not lodging the requisite documents. Accordingly, Canva did not comply with the requirements under California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4), and the Court cannot determine whether the subject records should be filed under seal.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Canva's motion to seal is denied without prejudice. Canva is ordered to provide notice of this Order. DATED: September 1, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court | Home -->)" -->