Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation v. Triumph Aerostructures, LLC

CASE NUMBER: 24STCP02615 NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN AID OF ARBITRATION AWARD MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation RESP. PARTY: Respondent Triumph Aerostructures, LLC MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN AID OF ARBITRATION AWARD (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 483.010, 484.040, 484.090, 1281.8) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation 's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Aid of Arbitration Award is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Moving party is ordered to give notice. SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on August 13, 2026 [] Late [] None REPLY: Filed on August 19, 2026 [] Late [] None ANALYSIS: I.

Background

On August 16, 2026, Petitioner Northrop Grumman System Corporation ("Petitioner") filed a Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the "Petition") against Respondent Triumph Aerostructures, LLC dba Triumph Aerostructures Vought Aircraft Division ("Respondent").

On November 15, 2024, the Court granted the Petition and denied the Cross-Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. (11/15/24 Order.)

On February 7, 2025, the Court issued a Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award.

On July 30, 2025, the Court granted a stipulated protective order between the parties. (7/30/25 Order.)

On January 20, 2026, the Second Appellate District Court issued a remittitur affirming the Court's ruling on the Petition and Cross-Petition.

On April 20, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.

On May 28, 2026, Petitioner filed an Acknowledgment of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment.

On June 22, 2026, the Court issued a protective order pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (6/22/26 Order.)

On July 13, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Aid of Arbitration, Right to Attach Order, and Writ of Attachment against Respondent (the "Motion").

On August 13, 2026, Respondent filed an Opposition.

On August 18, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply.

II. Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, the Motion's memorandum and supporting evidence contain various and substantive redactions.

Further, the Motion is accompanied by notices of lodging and documents filed under seal.

The moving papers appear to state these redactions and sealed records are made pursuant to a stipulation between the parties.

The 7/30/25 Stipulation and Protective Order between the parties provides, in pertinent part, the following: Where any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials, or AEO Materials, or information derived from AEO Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules.

With respect to discovery motions or other proceedings not governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the following shall apply: If Confidential Materials or Information derived from Confidential Materials are submitted to or otherwise disclosed to the Court in connection with discovery motions and proceedings, the same shall be separately filed under seal with the clerk of the Court in an envelope marked: 'CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SEALING ORDER REQUIRED.'

If AEO Materials or Information derived from AEO Materials are submitted to or otherwise disclosed to the Court in connection with discovery motions and proceedings, the same shall be separately filed under seal with the clerk of the Court in an envelope marked: 'ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SEALING ORDER REQUIRED.' (7/30/25 Stip. & Protective Order, emphasis added.)

"Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court rule 2.550 requires a court order for sealing records that are not "discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings" or "records that are required to be kept confidential by law." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subds. (a)(1)-(3).)

Here, the Court finds Petitioner's redactions and lodging of documents under seal are violative of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 as there is no court order permitting the redactions and sealing of records regarding the instant Motion.

While the Motion and accompanying notices of lodging state the redactions and filings under seal were done "pursuant to protective order and without any further sealing order required" (see e.g., Motion, Notice of Lodging), the Court finds the redactions and sealing in this matter are beyond the scope of the stipulated protective orders in this case or typical confidential material allowed to be redacted or sealed by law. (See 7/30/25 Stip. & Order; 6/22/26 Stip. & Order; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550.)

Indeed, the instant Motion seeks a preliminary injunction and the issuance of a writ of attachment. (See Motion.)

The Court finds the nature of the Motion is not a discovery motion and is thus governed by California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 and not the parties' stipulation regarding sealed materials or California Rules of Court rule 2.550's exception for discovery motions.

As such, the Court finds the Motion, inclusive of substantive and varied redactions and sealed documents, is not filed in conformance with California Rules of Court, rule 2.550.

Accordingly, the Court may not rule on the Motion, and the Motion is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation 's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Aid of Arbitration Award is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV00641 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 512 HEARING DATE: Weds., August 26, 2026 JUDGE/DEPT: Mkrtchyan/512 CASE NAME: Merlos, et al. v. Queen Anne COMP. FILED: 01-10-25 Properties, LLC