JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

Plaintiffs’ counsel to give notice.

Discussion:

I. Defendants S&P Global and Market Scan Information Systems, Inc. Motion to Enforce Stipulated Protective Order and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $5,931.00

Defendants are seeking an order enforcing the Stipulated Protective Order entered between Plaintiff and Defendants, and requiring Plaintiff to immediately remove from the public docket, or re-file under seal, documents designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential”; prohibiting Plaintiff from further unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential materials; and an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $5,931.

Defendants contend the following documents filed by Plaintiff in his opposition to the motions for summary judgment should not have been publicly disclosed:

1. Exhibit 9 – July 9, 2023 email chain among S&P management concerning Plaintiff Jose Galvan; bates labeled SP Global 000877-000879.

2. Exhibit 10 – S&P internal account-assignment scenario document concerning the reassignment of accounts as between Plaintiff and James Gagnier; bates labeled SP Global 000867.

3. Exhibit 12 – November 10, 2023 Performance Improvement Plan issued to Plaintiff, in completed form; bates labeled SP Global 000374-000379.

4. Exhibit 13 – Email from Scott Cauvel forwarding “Notes to File” concerning Plaintiff to S&P’s Human Resources department; bates labeled SP Global 000416. Exhibit 22 5. Exhibit 22– Excerpts of the Disclosure Schedule to the Stock Purchase Agreement governing S&P’s acquisition of Market Scan, including Section 3.10 (Taxes / California Privacy Rights Act) at SP Global 001005 and Section 3.13 (Intellectual Property) at SP Global 001014-001015.

6. Exhibit 23 – Scott Cauvel’s “Notes to File” regarding Jose Galvan; bates labeled SP Global 000193-000438.2 (Waddell Decl., ¶ 5.)

To begin, on March 18, 2025, counsel for all parties in this lawsuit mutually agreed in writing to follow a process whereby either party may deem materials meeting certain criteria “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” “access to and/or Disclosure of [Confidential or Highly Confidential] Materials be limited to “the Court” and other limited third parties, but not to the public say, as an exhibit filed with a publicly accessible Motion with this court. (Stipulation, pp. 1-9 passim.)

2024CUWT023824: JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff violated agreement when, on 5/25/26, Plaintiff publicly filed documents designated as “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” as exhibits to his Opposition to Defendant S&P Global’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Specifically, Exhibits 9, 10, 12, 13, 22 and 23.) Defendants assert that Plaintiff did so without seeking leave to file these confidential documents under seal, and without ever challenging the confidentiality of designation, and that when Defendants promptly demanded corrective action, Plaintiff ignored those requests.

Plaintiff argues that Paragraph 19 of the agreement specifically “routes summary-judgment filings to the sealing rules” of CRC 2.550 and 2.551 and therefore does not apply to the documents at issue here, since they were included as exhibits to an Opposition to Summary Judgment (as opposed, say, to a Motion to Compel discovery of documents).

The Court finds Plaintiff’s filing of documents Defendants designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” in his opposition papers in and of itself does not violate the Stipulated Protective Order. Paragraph 19 of the Stipulated Protective Order states that where any designated confidential material is included in any motion governed by CRC, rules 2.550 and 2.551, those rules are to be followed. Since Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is governed by CRC, rules 2.550 and 2.551, these rules apply and supersede the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order.

However, the stipulation does state the parties are to follow CRC, rules 2.550 and 2.551. Plaintiff has not done so. There is no evidence that Plaintiff, prior to filing the alleged confidential documents with the Court, gave written notice to Defendant that the records in issue would be placed in the public court file absent a timely motion or application to seal the records by Defendants. (CRC, rule 2.551(b)(3)(A)(iii).)

Defendants are correct that CRC, rule 2.551(b)(3)(A) provides that a party who intends to file with the court for purposes of adjudication or trial, records that are subject to a protective order, and does not intend to request to have the records sealed, must lodge the unredacted records and file the redacted documents so that they do not disclose the contents of the records that are subject to that protective order. That party must then give written notice to the party who produced the records, that the records have been lodged and will be placed in the public file unless that party files a timely motion to seal. Plaintiff failed to do so and failed to remove the documents upon request by Defendants.

In sum, Defendants’ motion to enforce the Stipulated Protective Order is GRANTED.

With regards to the documents that have been filed, the Court orders the Exhibit List filed by Plaintiff on 5/26/26 containing all exhibits to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment stricken, without prejudice to re-file all exhibits in compliance with CRC, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

Turning to Defendants’ request for sanctions, the Court declines to impose sanctions under CCP §2023.030 as this section pertains to the misuse of the discovery process, which is inapplicable to the situation at hand.

2024CUWT023824: JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

Defendants also seek sanctions under CCP §128.5. Defendants argue sanctions are warranted due to Plaintiff’s disregard of the Stipulated Protective Order, failure to follow sealing protocols, and refusal to correct the violation after being notified of the violation. CCP §128.5 provides for sanctions due to actions or tactics that are made in bad faith, are frivolous, or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Frivolous is defined as “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (CCP §128.5(b)(2)).

A motion for CCP §128.5 “shall be made separately from other motions or requests”. (CCP §128.5(f)(1)(A).) A party bringing a noticed motion for sanctions under this statute must do so by noticed motion that is to be served, but not filed with the court, unless 21 days after service of said motion the challenged tactic or action is not withdrawn or corrected.

Defendants request for sanctions under CCP §128.5 lacks merit. The request for sanctions was not made by way of a separate motion, nor was there compliance with the 21-day safe harbor provision.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

II.

Conclusion

Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Stipulated Protective Order is GRANTED.

The Court orders the Exhibit List filed by Plaintiff on 5/26/26 containing all exhibits to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment stricken, without prejudice to re-file all exhibits in compliance with CRC, rules 2.550 and 2.551. Plaintiff shall re-file his Exhibit List by no later than 6/30/26.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

III. Defendants Renewed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal in Support of Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551, Defendants renew their prior request (denied without prejudice on May 7, 2026) that the Court order the following Exhibits be filed under seal on the grounds that the documents contain confidential and private information:

1. Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the Declaration of Scott Cauvel; 2. Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Declaration of David Mondragon; and 3. Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Mark Sandora.

1. Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Scott Cauvel:

The Declaration of Scott Cauvel as filed appears to be missing the first page (or perhaps two pages) following the cover page, with the declarant’s statement beginning only on page three, in the middle of Paragraph 5. In his Evidentiary Objections, Plaintiff correctly points out that the

2024CUWT023824: JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

missing pages likely contain the foundation necessary to establish whether the declarant has firsthand knowledge about the subject matter of their testimony (e.g., Mr. Cauvel’s identity, position within Defendant S&P’s hierarchy, and basis for his personal knowledge).

This itself would justify the Court’s sustaining Plaintiff’s objection to the Declaration in its entirety and disregarding its contents. Doing so would effectively doom Defendants’ renewed motion from the outset, as Mr. Cauvel’s Declaration contains information critical to a determination of whether some or all of the disputed documents ought to be sealed under CRC 2.550 and 2.551.

That said, the missing pages are almost certainly a clerical error (uncorrected by Defendant within the established briefing period). In the spirit of fairness and ruling on the merits, therefore, the Court will err on the side of caution and OVERRULE Plaintiff’s objection to the declaration “in its entirety.” In the same spirit, the Court will also OVERRULE Plaintiff’s four objections to specific statements. The Court will consider the merits of the motion.

2.

Analysis

The public has a First Amendment right of access to documents filed in civil cases that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication. (Overstock.com, Inc. v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 CA4th 471, 483–484.) Both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized a “general right” under the common law “to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” (Satele v Superior Court (2019) 7 C5th 852, 860 (citing Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc. (1978) 435 US 589, 597, 98 S Ct 1306); Alfaro v Superior Court (2020) 58 CA5th 371, 384.) This right of access serves the important functions of ensuring the integrity of judicial proceedings in particular and the law enforcement process in general. (Satele v Superior Court, supra, 7 C5th at 860.)

To this end, court records are presumed to be open to the public, unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by law (CRC 2.550(a)(2), (c)) or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality. (Overstock.com, Inc. v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., supra, 231 CA4th at 483.)

“If public court business is conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism. For this reason traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of judicial tribunals.” (Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 784.) Thus, before substantive courtroom proceedings are closed or documents/transcripts are sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that (i) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.” (NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1217-1218.)

The court may order that a record may be filed under seal only if the judge expressly finds facts that establish all of these factors. (Cal Rules of Ct 2.550(d); NBC

2024CUWT023824: JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court (1999) 20 C4th 1178, 1217–1218; Alfaro v Superior Court (2020) 58 CA5th 371, 384, 386.)

The Court cannot make a reasoned decision about sealing (or unsealing) records without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. (H.B. Fuller Co. v Doe (2007) 151 CA4th 879, 894.) This process necessitates:

(1) Identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public disclosure,

(2) Identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and

(3) Identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations.

(Id.)

The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two stages is logically placed on the moving party, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm this party and how. Accordingly, at a minimum, the moving party must specify the facts the party wants to be withheld and give specific reasons why they should be withheld. (Id.)

The party opposing a sealing order has the burden of demonstrating that there are reasonable alternatives to sealing. (See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court, supra, at 1218 n40.)

Overriding interests that may justify sealing a particular record include the following:

• Preserving the litigants' right to a fair trial. (See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v Superior Court (1986) 478 US 1, 13–14, 106 S Ct 2735, 2743; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court, supra, at 1216–1217.)

• Protecting the litigants' privacy interests, e.g., with respect to trade secrets or other proprietary information, such as customer or client lists, or with respect to personal identifying information, such as financial or medical records. (See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v Superior Court (1984) 464 US 501, 511–512, 104 S Ct 819, 824–825; Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc. (1978) 435 US 589, 598, 98 S Ct 1306; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court, supra, at 1222; Overstock.com, Inc. v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 CA4th 471, 503–506 (judge should strike as irrelevant individual's financial information in whatever form it takes, e.g., tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information, and either remove it from record or seal it for good cause).

But see H.B. Fuller Co. v Doe, supra, at 898 (no justification for sealing records that contain only facts already known or available to public).

• Protecting the privacy interests of third parties. Some judges are more likely to grant a motion to seal to protect the privacy interests of third parties than they are to grant a motion to seal to protect the privacy interests of a litigant, believing that when a litigant

2024CUWT023824: JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

seeks relief in a judicial forum, the litigant is giving up some personal privacy. (See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court, supra, at 1211; Bellas v Superior Court (2000) 85 CA4th 636, 646.)

• Protecting privileges. See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court, supra, at 1222 n46 (listing privileges that have been recognized in judicial decisions as overriding right of public access).

The overriding interest that Defendants identify as warranting the requested order is its right to privacy, including confidential and proprietary information. (Motion p. 6, line 6-7.) Neither party asserts that any of the documents are irrelevant to the issues in this case or for the pending motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that the documents at issue appear to go to the very heart of the controversy between the parties, however, Defendants have shown their right to privacy in all the documents constitute an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s constitutional right to access these documents.

The Court GRANTS Defendants motion to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the Declaration of Scott Cauvel; Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Declaration of David Mondragon; and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Mark Sandora contained in Defendants’ Compendiums of Evidence in Support of their respective motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.

The Court finds each of the following concerning these exhibits based upon the declaration of Mr. Scott Cauvel, executive director for S&P Global Mobility: (1) An overriding interest (confidential proprietary information as to which S&P Global keeps private to protect from disclosure to the public and competitors, including sales strategies and reports, marketing strategies, pricing, product development, financial forecasts, management of customer responsibilities, and customer and client information) exists that overcomes the right of public access to the records and supports sealing the records. (2) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed. (3) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. (4) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

All the exhibits contain materials and information constituting proprietary business information which had been designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” by Defendants pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiff opposes the sealing, claiming the public’s interest outweighs any rights to privacy of these documents. The Court finds otherwise. The Declaration of Scott Cauvel explains the nature of the documents, the importance of maintaining privacy in the documents, and the substantial probability of prejudice and potential economic value derived from these records not being publicly known. This information is sufficient for Defendants to meet their burden.

The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to establish reasonable alternatives to sealing. Plaintiff has not provided any reasonable alternatives, other than requesting an outright denial of the sealing. Plaintiff has not carried his burden.

2024CUWT023824: JOSE GALVAN vs S&P GLOBAL, et al.

3.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the Declaration of Scott Cauvel; Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Declaration of David Mondragon; and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Mark Sandora contained in Defendants’ Compendiums of Evidence in Support of their respective motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, is GRANTED. It should be noted, this ruling pertains to sealing of these documents for purposes of the motions for summary judgement/summary adjudication only.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice of this ruling within two (2) court days.

8