Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation

S.D. California

Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation

DecidedJune 9, 2025

Docket3:20-cv-00191

StatusUnknown

This text of Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation (Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEAN BEAVER and LAURIE BEAVER, Case No.: 20-cv-00191-AJB-DEB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL 13 v. 14 (Doc. No. 151) Omni Hotels Management Corporation, a 15 Delaware Corporation; LC BROKERAGE 16 CORP., a Delaware Corporation; LC INVESTMENT 2010, LLC, a Delaware 17 Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM 18 IMS, an individual; KELLY GINSBERG, an individual; BRETT ALEXANDER 19 COMBS, an individual; and DOES 1 20 through 50, inclusive,

21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court is a renewed motion to seal Exhibits 38 through 421 filed by 24 Plaintiffs, Dean Beaver and Laurie Beaver, and the Class. (Doc. No. 151.) Defendants do 25 not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 155.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 26 GRANTS the motion to seal. 27

28 1 Relevant here, while there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court 2 ||records,” it “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons 3 || for doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 ||Having reviewed the motion and declaration in support of sealing, the Court finds 5 || compelling reasons to grant the motion. Through their renewed motion, Plaintiffs address 6 || the issues the Court identified when it denied their earlier motion to seal, including that the 7 request was overbroad and lacked a supporting declaration. Now, Plaintiffs have filed an 8 accompanying declaration and seek to seal only portions of Exhibits 38 through 42, which 9 ||are documents reflecting “all owner statements of Class members at the Omni La Costa 10 || Resort and Spa during the Class period.” (Doc. No. 150 at 2.) Plaintiffs redacted from these 11 |;exhibits only the personal addresses of each Class member that appear on the upper 12 || left-hand corner of the owner statements. (/d.) 13 Considering the limited and personal nature of the information sought to be sealed 14 its lack of import on the pending motions for summary judgment and motions to 15 || exclude experts, the Court finds compelling reasons justify this narrow request for sealing. 16 || See, e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) 17 ||(noting with approval the magistrate judge’s finding “that the personal information of 18 |}Kamakana and various law enforcement officers (home addresses and social security 19 ||numbers) met the ‘compelling reason’ standard.”). 20 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 151.) The Clerk of 21 Court is DIRECTED to file as sealed the documents lodged at Doc. No. 152. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: June 8, 2025 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 2 nn ANnANnAT □□□□□□□□□□

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEAN BEAVER and LAURIE BEAVER, Case No.: 20-cv-00191-AJB-DEB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL 13 v. 14 (Doc. No. 151) Omni Hotels Management Corporation, a 15 Delaware Corporation; LC BROKERAGE 16 CORP., a Delaware Corporation; LC INVESTMENT 2010, LLC, a Delaware 17 Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM 18 IMS, an individual; KELLY GINSBERG, an individual; BRETT ALEXANDER 19 COMBS, an individual; and DOES 1 20 through 50, inclusive,

21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court is a renewed motion to seal Exhibits 38 through 421 filed by 24 Plaintiffs, Dean Beaver and Laurie Beaver, and the Class. (Doc. No. 151.) Defendants do 25 not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 155.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 26 GRANTS the motion to seal. 27

28 1 Relevant here, while there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court 2 ||records,” it “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons 3 || for doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 ||Having reviewed the motion and declaration in support of sealing, the Court finds 5 || compelling reasons to grant the motion. Through their renewed motion, Plaintiffs address 6 || the issues the Court identified when it denied their earlier motion to seal, including that the 7 request was overbroad and lacked a supporting declaration. Now, Plaintiffs have filed an 8 accompanying declaration and seek to seal only portions of Exhibits 38 through 42, which 9 ||are documents reflecting “all owner statements of Class members at the Omni La Costa 10 || Resort and Spa during the Class period.” (Doc. No. 150 at 2.) Plaintiffs redacted from these 11 |;exhibits only the personal addresses of each Class member that appear on the upper 12 || left-hand corner of the owner statements. (/d.) 13 Considering the limited and personal nature of the information sought to be sealed 14 its lack of import on the pending motions for summary judgment and motions to 15 || exclude experts, the Court finds compelling reasons justify this narrow request for sealing. 16 || See, e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) 17 ||(noting with approval the magistrate judge’s finding “that the personal information of 18 |}Kamakana and various law enforcement officers (home addresses and social security 19 ||numbers) met the ‘compelling reason’ standard.”). 20 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 151.) The Clerk of 21 Court is DIRECTED to file as sealed the documents lodged at Doc. No. 152. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: June 8, 2025 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 2 nn ANnANnAT □□□□□□□□□□

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaver-v-omni-hotels-management-corporation-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack