This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/14/2021 at 07:01:19 (UTC).

EVA KOWALSKI VS GERSH AGENCY, INC.,, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/16/2020 EVA KOWALSKI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GERSH AGENCY, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TIMOTHY PATRICK DILLON, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and MALCOLM MACKEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5441

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TIMOTHY PATRICK DILLON

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

MALCOLM MACKEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KOWALSKI EVA

Defendants

BARCLAY SEAN

RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT LLC

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.

MCCARTHY MELISSA

NEW LINE PRODCTIONS INC. AKA NEW LINE CINEMA

FALCONE BENJAMIN SCOTT

RATNER BRETT

ON THE DAY PRODUCTIONS LLC

GERSH AGENCY INC.

NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS INC. AKA NEW LINE CINEMA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LINDEMANN BLAKE J

LINDEMANN BLAKE J.

Defendant Attorneys

JOHNSON ARWEN RAINBIRD

KRAVETZ DANA

KLEIN JONATHAN MICHAEL

JOHNSON ARWEN R.

KLEIN JONATHAN M.

KRAVETZ DANA A.

MORRIS GEORGE R.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANTS BRETT RATNER AND RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT, LLCS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAU

10/28/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANTS BRETT RATNER AND RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT, LLCS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAU

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANTS BRETT RATNER AND RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT, LLCS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

10/28/2021: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANTS BRETT RATNER AND RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT, LLCS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANTS BRETT RATNER AND RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT, LLCS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

10/28/2021: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANTS BRETT RATNER AND RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT, LLCS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

10/28/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT WBEI'S REPLY ISO IT'S MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

11/1/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT WBEI'S REPLY ISO IT'S MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND DECLARATION OF GEORGE R. MORRIS ISO MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPS

11/1/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND DECLARATION OF GEORGE R. MORRIS ISO MTC FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPS

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT ON THE DAY PRODUCTIONS, LLC'S CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DO

11/1/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT ON THE DAY PRODUCTIONS, LLC'S CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DO

Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND DECLARATION OF GEORGE R. MORRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MO

11/1/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND DECLARATION OF GEORGE R. MORRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MO

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

11/1/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND DECLARATION OF GEORGE R. MORRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONE

11/1/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND DECLARATION OF GEORGE R. MORRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONE

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

11/1/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT (CCP 473.5) AS ...)

11/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT (CCP 473.5) AS ...)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/8/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SP...)

11/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SP...)

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF BRETT RATNER AND MARTIN D. SINGER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONA

10/22/2021: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF BRETT RATNER AND MARTIN D. SINGER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONA

Application - APPLICATION PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO SEAL DECLARATION OF BLAKE J. LINDEMANN FILED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIE

10/22/2021: Application - APPLICATION PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO SEAL DECLARATION OF BLAKE J. LINDEMANN FILED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIE

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF EVA KOWALSKIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

10/22/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF EVA KOWALSKIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

10/22/2021: Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF, FROM ENTRIES OF DEFAULT

153 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/18/2022
  • Hearing04/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2022
  • Hearing04/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2021
  • Hearing11/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2021
  • Hearing11/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions [Res. ID# 501994009185]) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,000 [Res. ID# 477118608460]) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,000 [Res. ID# 449829272823]) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,000 [Res. ID# 365012717119]) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Monetary Sanctions [Res. ID# 351574071603]) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 76, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Form Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions [Res. ID# 726966596759]) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
208 More Docket Entries
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge Against Jud...) of 09/22/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge Against Jud...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Eva Kowalski (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Eva Kowalski (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Eva Kowalski (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Eva Kowalski (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STCV35441 Hearing Date: November 4, 2021 Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that, without compensating or crediting her,\r\nDefendants misappropriated, used and exploited Plaintiff’s protected work, ideas,\r\nand concepts for an innovative treatment and script to produce their own movie for\r\nprofit.

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nBrett Ratner and RatPac Entertainment, LLC move to set aside entry of default.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nEva Kowalski applies for an order sealing documents filed in opposition to the motion\r\nto set aside default.

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nEva Kowalski’s application to seal is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant\r\nto CRC Rule 2.551(b)(6), moving party has 10 days to notify the Court whether the\r\nlodged record is to be filed unsealed, otherwise, the lodged record will be returned\r\nto Plaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

Given the\r\nruling on the application to seal, the hearing\r\non Defendants Brett Ratner and RatPac Entertainment, LLC’s\r\nmotion to set aside default is CONTINUED to December 3, 2021 at 8:30 AM, as the\r\nCourt needs to know whether Plaintiff will withdraw its materials in support of\r\nthe opposition, or resubmit revised materials.

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

Application To Seal

\r\n\r\n

The application\r\nto seal was served by e-mail on October 22, 2021, which is only 9 court days prior\r\nto hearing date. At least 16 court days plus 2 court days’ notice is required per\r\nCCP § 1005(b) and § CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).

\r\n\r\n

Nonetheless,\r\nthe Court will rule on the merits because Defendants have not objected to the defect\r\nin notice, and the motion is being denied on the merits.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks an order sealing the\r\nDeclaration of Blake J. Lindemann and partial deposition transcript of Melissa McCarthy\r\nattached thereto, because such documents were designated as confidential by Defendants.

\r\n\r\n

A motion seeking an order sealing the\r\nrecord must be accompanied by “a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”\r\n(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(b)(1)[bold emphasis and underlining added].) Per\r\nCRC Rule 2.550(d), a court may order that a record be filed under seal “only if it expressly finds facts that establish” all of the following:

\r\n\r\n

(1) There\r\nexists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) The\r\noverriding interest supports sealing the record;

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(3) A substantial\r\nprobability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record\r\nis not sealed;

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(4) The\r\nproposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(5) No less\r\nrestrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d)]bold emphasis\r\nand underlining added].)

\r\n\r\n

CRC Rule 2.550(e) provides:

\r\n\r\n

(1) An order\r\nsealing the record must:

\r\n\r\n

(A) Specifically state the facts that support the\r\nfindings;

\r\n\r\n

(B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and\r\npages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that\r\ncontain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each\r\ndocument or page must be included in the public file.

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court,\r\nRule 2.550(e).)

\r\n\r\n

“A request to seal a document must be\r\nfiled publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration\r\nor affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” (In re\r\nMarriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416 [bold emphasis and underlining\r\nadded].)

\r\n\r\n

Unless confidentiality is required by\r\nlaw, court records are presumed to be open.” CRC Rule\r\n2.550(c)(bold emphasis and underlining added). \r\nThe trial court\r\ncannot rely solely on an agreement or stipulation of the parties as the basis for\r\npermitting records to be filed under seal. (Citations omitted.)” (Savaglio\r\nv. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600 [bold emphasis and\r\nunderlining added].)

\r\n\r\n

Moving party does not sufficiently describe any\r\nmaterial that is required to be confidential by law. As such, the claimed confidential materials\r\nare subject to the sealing analysis set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d).

\r\n\r\n

Here, moving party has not demonstrated by way of a factual declaration\r\nor affidavit that all of the CRC Rule 2.550(d) requirements for\r\nsealing have been met.

\r\n\r\n

¿ CRC Rule 2.550(d) factors:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) There\r\nexists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In terms of the overriding interest requirement\r\nof a closure or sealing order, NBC Subsidiary identifies two separate elements.\r\nThe first element requires the identification of an overriding interest. (NBC Subsidiary\r\n(KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1217–1218; see In re\r\nProvidian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 298, fn. 3.) Defendant\r\nhas identified such a potential overriding interest—a binding contractual agreement\r\nnot to disclose.

\r\n\r\n

. . .

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation\r\nnot to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule\r\n243.1(d). (Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, supra, 733 F.2d at p. 1073; NBC\r\nSubsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1222, fn.\r\n46.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Universal City Studios,\r\nInc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.)

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff indicates that the documents to\r\nbe sealed were designated confidential by Defendants, but Plaintiff does not necessarily\r\nagree with the designation.

\r\n\r\n

An\r\nestablished interest in confidentiality may in some circumstances present an overriding\r\ninterest that overcomes the right to public access to the record. However, the confidentiality of the materials\r\nappears to be in dispute.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This requirement is not satisfied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) The\r\noverriding interest supports sealing the record;

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

There is no showing that an overriding interest\r\nsupports sealing the record.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This\r\nrequirement is not satisfied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(3) A\r\nsubstantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if\r\nthe record is not sealed;

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Even\r\nif moving party had identified an overriding interest, that, by itself, is insufficient\r\nto justify a sealing order.

\r\n\r\n

We have been unable to find any appellate\r\ncourt decision which construes Publicker to permit\r\nsealing of court documents merely upon the agreement of the parties without a specific\r\nshowing of serious injury. We therefore, with respect, reject defendant’s broad\r\nreading of the citation to Publicker in footnote\r\n46 of NBC Subsidiary.

\r\n\r\n

. . . [*1283] \r\n. . . [O]nce it is established there is a potential overriding interest, the\r\nparty seeking closure or sealing must prove prejudice to that interest is substantially\r\nprobable. ( NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.\r\nSuperior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at\r\np. 1222.)

\r\n\r\n

In\r\nterms of the overriding interest requirement of a closure or sealing order, NBC Subsidiary identifies\r\ntwo separate elements. The first element requires the identification of an overriding\r\ninterest. ( NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior\r\nCourt, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1217–1218; see In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 298, fn. 3.) Defendant has identified such a potential overriding\r\ninterest—a binding contractual agreement not to disclose. The second element of the overriding interest\r\nanalysis is there must be a substantial probability that it will be prejudiced absent\r\nclosure or sealing. ( NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV),\r\nInc. v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at\r\np. 1218; Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 832 [107 Cal. Rptr. 2d\r\n594].) As we will note, defendant has\r\nnot shown a substantial probability any such interest in the present case will be\r\nprejudiced—the second element of overriding interest analysis identified in\r\nNBC Subsidiary. This analysis has now been promulgated\r\nby the Judicial Council as one of the findings that must be returned before a sealing\r\norder can be entered. (Rule 243.1(d)(3) [“A substantial probability exists that\r\nthe overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed ….”].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Universal City Studios, Inc.,\r\nsupra, 110 Cal.App.4th at 1282-83 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party has not presented admissible evidence\r\nthat the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. The Lindemann Declaration does not articulate a\r\nspecific showing of serious injury, nor that there is a substantial probability\r\nof prejudice, if the record is not sealed. A general conclusion without specific\r\nexamples or articulated reasoning is insufficient to support a sealing order:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice to\r\nits business interests if it is revealed the parties entered into the October 14,\r\n1998, settlement agreement. No admissible\r\nevidence has been presented showing defendant will be harmed if the October\r\n14, 1998, agreement or any of its nonfinancial terms are made public particularly\r\nin light of the 88 redactions which have deleted any reference to financial data.\r\n. . . Defendant has presented no evidence\r\nthat disclosure of any of the substantive provisions as distinguished from the redacted\r\nfinancial terms of the October 14, 1998, agreement will prejudice any legitimate\r\nconfidential business practice. Finally, the arbitration which has been conducted\r\nin secret since January 1999, can continue out of the public eye.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Universal City Studios,\r\nInc., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at 1284 [bold emphasis added].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In delineating the injury to\r\nbe prevented, specificity is essential. [Citation.] Broad allegations of\r\nharm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.”\r\n( In re Cendant Corp., supra, 260 F.3d at p. 194 .) We have been unable to find any appellate court decision which construes\r\nPublicker to permit sealing of court documents merely upon the agreement of the\r\nparties without a specific showing of serious injury. We therefore, with\r\nrespect, reject defendant’s broad reading of the citation to Publicker in footnote\r\n46 of NBC Subsidiary.

\r\n\r\n

(Universal City Studios, Inc., supra,\r\n110 Cal.App.4th at 1280-82 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This requirement is not satisfied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored;

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nproposed sealing does not appear to be narrowly tailored.

\r\n\r\n

This\r\nrequirement is not satisfied.

\r\n\r\n

(5) No\r\nless restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

\r\n\r\n

Moving party has not adequately addressed\r\nthis factor. For instance, there is no indication that redaction of information\r\nwill achieve the overriding interest.

\r\n\r\n

This requirement is not satisfied.

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing\r\nreasons, the application to seal is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant to\r\nCRC Rule 2.551(b)(6), moving party has 10 days to notify the Court whether the lodged\r\nrecord is to be filed unsealed, otherwise, the lodged record will be returned to\r\nPlaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

If the court denies the motion or application to seal,\r\nthe moving party may notify the court that the lodged record is to be filed unsealed.\r\nThis notification must be received within 10 days of the order denying the motion\r\nor application to seal, unless otherwise ordered by the court. On receipt of this\r\nnotification, the clerk must unseal and file the record. If the moving party does\r\nnot notify the court within 10 days of the order, the clerk must (1) return the\r\nlodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete\r\nthe lodged record if it is in electronic form.\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551.)

\r\n\r\n

Motion To Set Aside Default

\r\n\r\n

Given the ruling\r\non the application to seal, the hearing on Defendants\r\nBrett Ratner and RatPac Entertainment, LLC’s motion to set aside default\r\nis CONTINUED to December 3, 2021 at 8:30 AM, as the Court needs to know whether\r\nPlaintiff will withdraw its materials in support of the opposition, or resubmit\r\nrevised materials.

'b'

Case Number: 20STCV35441 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that, without compensating or crediting\r\nher, Defendants misappropriated, used and exploited Plaintiff’s protected work,\r\nideas, and concepts for an innovative treatment and script to produce their own\r\nmovie for profit.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nWarner Bros. Entertainment Inc. moves for an order compelling responses to\r\nspecial interrogatories, and requests sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.’s motion\r\nto compel responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Verified responses\r\nare due without objection in 45 days.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of this motion is DENIED. If\r\nPlaintiff wishes to bring a motion to seek relief from waiver, Plaintiff has time\r\nto file such a motion.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel is\r\nGRANTED in the reduced amount of $810 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly\r\nand severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

Motions To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nWarner Bros. Entertainment Inc. moves for an order compelling responses to\r\nspecial interrogatories, and requests sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

When a party to whom interrogatories\r\nare directed fails to respond, under CCP § 2030.290(b) a party propounding the\r\ninterrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails\r\nto provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on\r\nprivilege or work product. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial\r\nresponses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is\r\nthat a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that\r\nthe time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been\r\nserved. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111\r\nCal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

\r\n\r\n

In the Opposition, Plaintiff does\r\nnot indicate that any code-compliant responses were served after the motion was\r\nfiled. Plaintiff’s counsel only indicates an oversight that discovery was\r\nserved by WBEI.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant is entitled to an order\r\ncompelling responses. The motion to compel responses to special interrogatories\r\nis GRANTED. Verified responses are due without objection in 45 days.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s request for a\r\ncontinuance of this motion is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to bring a motion to\r\nseek relief from waiver, Plaintiff has time to file such a motion.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s request for sanctions\r\nagainst Plaintiff and her counsel is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810\r\nagainst Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be\r\npaid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RATPAC ENTERTAINMENT LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where GERSH AGENCY INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where NEW LINE PRODCTIONS INC. AKA NEW LINE CINEMA is a litigant

Latest cases where WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. is a litigant