RICHARD DONOVAN VS. RENNA HU, ET AL

6/11/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 2 of 17

Case Title / Nature of Case

2:00 PM LINE: 1 24-CIV-07657 RICHARD DONOVAN VS. RENNA HU, ET AL

RICHARD DONOVAN JACQUELINE M SIMONOVICH RENNA HU PAUL T LLEWELLYN

PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT RICHARD DONOVAN’S MOTION TO FILE ATTORNEY FEE RECORDS UNDER SEAL

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Richard Donovan’s Motion for an Order Permanently Sealing Attorney Fee Records filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed December 9, 2025, is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff filed an anti-SLAPP motion on September 4, 2025, and a related motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on December 9, 2025. In support of the fee motion, Plaintiff submitted attorney billing invoices, which were lodged conditionally under seal on December 9, 2025. A redacted public version of the invoices was filed concurrently with the fee motion and attached to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Jacqueline M. Simonovich.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to permanently seal the lodged, unredacted billing invoices under California Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d) and 2.551. Plaintiff contends sealing is necessary to protect attorneyclient privileged and attorney work-product information contained in the unredacted fee invoices. Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition on May 29, 2026.

For clarification, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a separate “Motion to File Additional Attorney Fee Records Under Seal” on March 5, 2026. That separate motion is set for hearing on July 30, 2026, and is not before the Court at this hearing.

ANALYSIS

Court records are presumed open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) A record must not be filed under seal without a court order, and the Court may not seal records based solely on the parties’ agreement or non-opposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).) The Court may order records sealed only if it expressly finds: “(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 597.)

6/11/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 3 of 17

Upon review of the lodged unredacted billing invoices, the Court finds an overriding interest supports sealing the records at this stage because the invoices reflect attorney work performed in active and ongoing litigation. The California Supreme Court has held that attorney invoices for pending and active matters may implicate the heartland of the attorney-client privilege because they can reveal litigation strategy, legal work performed, and the nature of confidential attorney-client communications. (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 300.) The Court further finds a substantial probability that this interest would be prejudiced if the unredacted invoices are publicly filed while the litigation remains active and ongoing.

The Court also finds that sealing the unredacted invoices during the pendency of this active litigation is narrowly tailored and that no less restrictive means presently exists to protect the privileged and workproduct information reflected in the records. The public record already contains redacted copies of the invoices, which provide a less restrictive public filing while protecting privileged and strategy-related information.

However, the Court does not find that permanent sealing is justified for all records. Most of the invoices concern fee records and time entries connected to the pending anti-SLAPP and fee proceedings. Those records may be sealed while the litigation remains active and ongoing, but Plaintiff has not shown that permanent sealing is necessary for all entries. Permanent sealing is justified only as to the entries dated April 1, April 8, April 11, April 28, April 30, May 3, July 3, July 11, July 14, and July 15, 2025, because those entries reveal legal strategy, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, third-party legal consultation, or litigation tactics beyond mere time and fee information.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. The unredacted attorney fee records conditionally lodged under seal on December 9, 2025 shall remain sealed while this litigation is active and ongoing. Plaintiff’s request for permanent sealing is denied except as to the entries dated April 1, April 8, April 11, April 28, April 30, May 3, July 3, July 11, July 14, and July 15, 2025.

ORDERS

The Clerk shall affix a label prominently stating: “SEALED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON [DATE].” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(d)(2), (e)(1).)

Upon entry of judgment, the records shall be unsealed except for the entries dated April 1, April 8, April 11, April 28, April 30, May 3, July 3, July 11, July 14, and July 15, 2025, absent further order of the Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(h)(1).)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.