Mabudian, M.D., et al, v. Beaver Medical Group, PC, et al

13. Mabudian, M.D., et al, v. Beaver Medical Group, PC, et al, Case No. CIVSB2133187 Defendants’ Motion to Seal 9/1/26, 1:30 p.m., Dept. S-17

The motion is MOOT as to Exhibits 3, 4, 9, and 10, in light of the parties’ agreement that these documents may be filed in support of Defendants pending motion for summary judgment or adjudication.1 The Court would GRANT the motion as to Exhibits 5 through 8.

The Court would also ORDER the return of the Appendix of Exhibits currently lodged. Defendants have ten days in which to re-file the Appendix with Exhibits 3, 4, 9, and 10 (see supra) and Exhibits 1, 2, and 11, properly redacted (see FN 1). Defendants may submit Exhibits 5 through 8 separately under seal.

Unless confidentiality is required by law, all court filings are presumed to be public. (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) In order to seal a court filing, the court must make five express findings: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right of access; (2) the overriding interest supports the sealing; (3) there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to the need; and (5) there are no less restrictive means to protect that overriding interest. (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

At issue are Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, that Defendants submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment or adjudication (MSJ). On May 29, 2026, Defendants lodged conditionally under seal their entire Appendix of Evidence in support of their MSJ. Because Exhibits 3, 4, 9, and 10 relate only to Plaintiff’s medical information and Plaintiff states that she does not oppose and, in fact, authorizes the documents being filed in the public record, Defendants have withdrawn their motion as to those exhibits. Thus, the motion is moot as to those exhibits.

Now, the motion to seal only remains at issue as to Exhibits 5 through 8, which are various email chains from March 18, 2021 [Exh. 5]; March 19, 2021 [Exh. 6]; and May 6, 2021 [Exh. 8]; as well as a facsimile from April 20, 2021 [Exh. 7]. Defendants assert Exhibits 5 to 8 contain financial and business information and, thus, are protected from disclosure. They provide case citations to cases in which courts sealed financial information involving confidential matters related to business operations that if revealed would interfere with a party’s ability to effectively compete in the marketplace and prejudice a party’s legitimate interests. Defendants assert that, if their business decisions were made public, it is likely that competitors would make use of such information and prejudice Defendants’ market position.

Defendants’ counsel’s declaration states the Exhibits at issue have been marked confidential under the stipulated protective order. He also states the exhibits involve confidential nonpublic business information. (Wilson Decl., ¶¶2-3.) A serious injury from public disclosure must be shown and without such showing, the exhibits cannot be ordered sealed. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281-1282.) Here, the at-issue documents have been designated confidential pursuant to the applicable protective order, and a review of the relevant exhibits indicates at least implied descriptions of internal Utilization Management (UM) processes and deliberations.

1 On August 24, 2026, Defendants filed a Notice of Lodging Documents Conditionally Under Seal, in which it states that Plaintiff has requested that her home address be redacted from the documents and then requests the attached Exhibits 1, 2, and 11 be lodged as the exhibits instead of the ones previously submitted on May 29, 2026. Defendants agree this approach is reasonable.

2