Kiani vs. Masimo Corporation

attorney-client communications, including engagement letters and billing records for legal services. (2) Moving Party has shown an overriding interest that supports sealing of records (see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC- TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46 [recognizing inter alia an overriding interest in protection of trade secrets and protection of information within the attorney-client privilege]; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286 [recognizing that confidential and sensitive business and financial information is ordinarily a matter appropriate for sealing].) (3) Publication of these records would prejudice Moving Party by publicly disclosing attorney-client communications, attorney work-product, and sensitive financial information. (4) Moving Party proposed a narrowly tailored means to protect the overriding interest by redacting only those portions of the memorandum that constitute attorney-client communications and attorney work product and references the substance of the same. (5) Moving Party has shown there is no less restrictive means of protecting the overriding interests identified above.

The clerk is directed to file the unredacted Reply in Support of the Motion to Disqualify Attorney of Record (ROA 158) UNDER SEAL. The redacted versions of the Reply (ROA 148) shall be accessible on the public record of this proceeding.

Plaintiff to give notice.

6 Kiani vs. Masimo Corporation

2026-01546059 Petition to Compel Arbitration

No tentative. 7 Kim vs. Byun

2026-01579317 Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiffs Myung Soo Kim and Sun Hee Kim’s motion to consolidate this action with the Small Claims action Case No. 30- 2025-01517200 is DENIED. Consolidation is not appropriate as the Small Claims action has already been to trial and is now pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.390, subd. (b).) The case of Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc., (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 1467