Motion to seal
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 20CV362060 Echeverria v. Tapestry, Inc. dba Coach See Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 20CV373916 Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, et al. See Line 2 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 23CV411280 Blake v. Old Crow Smokehouse Orange, See Line 3 for tentative ruling. LLC, et al. (Class Action/PAGA) LINE 4 23CV422390 Brown v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. See Line 4 for tentative ruling. (Class Action) LINE 5 23CV427314 Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P., et al. v. See Line 5 for tentative ruling.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. LINE 6 25CV464775 Anthony Turiello vs Piping Systems See Line 6 for tentative ruling. Engineering Inc. LINE 7 25CV471436 Francisco Guevara Vs Westcoast See Line 7 for tentative ruling. Plumbing Service, Inc. LINE 8 25CV481717 Heather Buxbaum vs Stanford Health Unopposed motion for Care admission pro hac vice of Attorney Lange is GRANTED. No appearance necessary. Counsel to submit Proposed Order. LINE 9 25CV481717 Heather Buxbaum vs Stanford Health Unopposed motion for Care admission pro hac vice of Attorney Sukert is GRANTED.
No appearance necessary. Counsel to submit Proposed Order. LINE 10 25CV483219 Herlinda Estrada et al vs Chattem, Inc., See Line 10 for tentative individually, as alter ego of, and as ruling. successor-in-interest to TH et al LINE 11 LINE 12 LINE 13
Calendar Line 6
Case Name: Turiello v. Piping Systems Engineering Inc. Case No.: 25CV464775
Before the Court is the motion to seal filed by plaintiffs Anthony Turiello and The Turiello Living Trust dated December 18, 2008 (“Plaintiffs”). As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal.
I.
Introduction
The background of the action is set forth in the Court’s May 6, 2026 Order Entering Tentative Ruling on Motions to Intervene and Motions to Seal (the “May 6, 2026 Order”). In that Order, the Court granted various motions to seal filed relating to the parties’ Joint Case Management Statements and the motion to intervene filed by Central Sprinkler LLC and Johnson Controls, Inc. (collectively, “JCI”). While the Court had intended to address all pending motions to seal with the May 6, 2026 Order, it appears that Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Opposition to Ex Parte Application and This Motion Under Seal, filed on December 18, 2025, was set for hearing May 17, 2026, rather than for the April 29, 2026 hearing like the motions to seal granted by the Court’s May 6, 2026 Order.
II.
Discussion
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?”
A. Legal Standard “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 exists to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) Pleadings, in particular, should be open to public inspection “as a general rule,” although they may be filed under seal in
appropriate circumstances. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 104, fn. 35.) “Courts have found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute overriding interests.” (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298, fn. 3 (Providian).) “[A] binding contractual agreement not to disclose” may suffice. (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 107.) In addition, confidential matters relating to the business operations of a party may be sealed where public revelation of the information would interfere with the party’s ability to effectively compete in the marketplace. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285-1286.)
B.
Analysis
Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed a declaration in support of the pending motion to seal. (Declaration of Nicole L. Chessari in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Opposition to Ex Parte Application and This Motion Under Seal, filed December 18, 2025 (“Chessari Decl.”)). Ms. Chessari explains that in May 2025 she exchanged correspondence with JCI’s then-counsel relating to the unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Chessari Decl. at ¶¶ 4–5.) As addressed by the Court in its May 6, 2026 Order, JCI has since filed its own motions to seal relating to its motion to intervene. (May 6, 2026 Order, p. 3:12-19.)
Having reviewed the pending motion to seal as well as the supporting memoranda and declarations submitted by counsel relating to all of the aforementioned motions to seal, the Court finds that there is an overriding interest in sealing the materials in question because the parties are under a binding contractual agreement not to disclose this information and because the information involves confidential matters pertaining to business operations. The Court further finds that there is substantial probability that these overriding interests would be prejudiced and that the other factors set forth in rule 2.550 are satisfied.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ pending motion to seal is GRANTED.
III.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Opposition to Ex Parte Application and This Motion Under Seal, filed on December 18, 2025, is GRANTED. The prevailing party shall prepare the order in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.
- oo0oo -
3