STEVEN FREDIANI VS. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA ET AL

Matter on Calendar for Thursday, August 7, 2025, Line 1 (Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling), DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S Motion To Retain Confidentiality.

Defendant PG&E's motion to retain confidentiality of six documents attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Stacy Campos is granted.

The parties entered into a protective order that was endorsed and filed on January 11, 2024. That protective order allows any party to designate as confidential "any information which is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law." The parties broadly cited federal and state law as well as privacy rights in their prefatory language at page 1 of the order. They further stipulated that "[m]ass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited" and that unjustified or improper designations "may expose the Designating Party to sanctions and/or costs." (Order para. 2.)

The parties have met and conferred about PG&E's designations. Plaintiffs contends that PG&E has overdesignated, in part because of the sheer number of its designations and in part because PG&E has designated discovery matter as confidential by page rather than providing individual redactions. This motion is brought without reference to any litigation-related purpose for which Plaintiffs seek to use or publicize Exhibits 1-6 of the Campos declaration.

The motion is granted because the parties' agreement permits the designation of a document as confidential only upon the good-faith belief that it is confidential. PG&E's briefing establishes its good faith basis for contending that the six documents attached to the Campos declaration are private, either as discussing critical safety infrastructure or by discussing personnel matters. That is all that is required for the designation to be proper under the terms of the parties' agreement.

The court further stresses that it is not today deciding whether the six attachments can be filed under seal as summary judgment exhibits. Plaintiffs' opposition conflates the standard for properly sealing a document submitted to the court for adjudication, the Rule 2.550(d) standard, with the standard that the protective order sets, which is simply that the party has a good-faith belief in the confidentiality of the document-not that the document satisfies the Rule 2.550 standard. This motion comes to the court untethered from any litigation-related purpose that Plaintiffs wish to use the six documents for. If Plaintiffs seek de-designation of documents in a context where they intend to file documents with the court or use them for some other litigation-related purpose, the result may well be different because the court may then have a different standard to apply.