Global Industrial Investment Limited v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC

Opinion

GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT Case No. 21-cv-08924-HSG LIMITED, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiffs, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 109, 114, 118, 121, 131, 133, 1955 CAPITAL FUND I GP LLC, et al., 144, 146, 148, 151, 152 Defendants. Pending before the Court are the administrative motions to file under seal filed by Petitioners Global Industrial Investment Limited and China Fortune Land Development and Respondents 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC and 1955 Capital China Fund GP LLC. See Dkt. Nos. 109, 114, 118, 121, 131, 133, 144, 146, 148, 151, 152. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). The parties continue to heavily litigate this case and have filed several administrative underlying arbitration and to Respondents’ and the Funds’ financial information. The Court initially denied over 20 administrative motions to seal related to the Second Arbitration Award, as well as the briefs and exhibits filed in this case regarding the enforcement of that award. Dkt. No. 108. Respondents have filed a renewed motion to seal, and now seek to seal narrower excerpts of these same documents. See Dkt. No. 109. The parties also seek to file under seal materials related to the parties’ more recent filings, including the motions for attorneys’ fees, motion for sanctions, motion to stay judgment pending appeal, and motion to include judgment details. See Dkt. Nos. 114, 118, 121, 131, 133, 144, 146, 148, 151, 152. The Court previously explained that the Second Arbitration Award is integral to the public’s understanding of these proceedings, and the Court accordingly applies the compelling reasons standard to Respondents’ requests to seal information related to that award and to the enforcement of that award. The Court otherwise applies the good cause standard to those documents related to ancillary and non-dipositive motions. For some of the administrative motions to seal, Petitioners initially filed motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed because Respondents previously designated specific documents as confidential. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f). However, rather than file a declaration explaining the need for keeping the documents or portions of the documents under seal, Respondents simply filed entirely new administrative motions to seal as to those same materials. Respondents are seeking to seal less information than previously identified. The Court therefore TERMINATES AS MOOT Petitioners’ initial administrative motions, and only considers Respondents’ more narrow requests where appropriate. Dkt. Nos. 121, 133, and 148. Substantively, many of the excerpts that Respondents seek to seal identify the specific amount of money that Respondents reserved for management fees of the Funds and for litigation expenses, rather than for investing on behalf of the Funds. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 109-4 at 6; see also Dkt. No. 109-3 at ¶¶ 383, 420–22, 499, & n.1131. Respondents make no attempt to explain with any level of specificity why such information should remain under seal. The declaration from Andrew Chung, Respondents’ managing member, only asserts at a high level that the information information concerning [Respondents’] internal finances and operations, sensitive financial information concerning third-party portfolio companies, and third-party investors.” See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶ 7. The amount of money Respondents reserved for management fees and litigation expenses does not appear to relate in any way to Respondents’ proprietary investments or investment strategies. See id. at ¶ 17. Moreover, this information was a key point of the analysis in the Second Arbitration Award, in which Arbitrator Arif Hyder Ali concluded that Respondents had breached their fiduciary duties. Similarly, Respondents seek to seal information regarding their bank statements. The specific account numbers are not disclosed in these documents, but they do contain information about some transactions and remaining balances regarding the Funds at issue in this case. Other than a generic explanation that such information is confidential and “competitively sensitive,” however, Respondents do not explain how this specific information could cause them competitive harm. See Dkt. No. 109 at 2–3; Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7, 15, 17–18. Generic explanations of competitive harm are insufficient to justify sealing this information. Additionally, several of the parties’ outstanding motions, including whether sanctions are necessary and whether a stay of judgment is appropriate pending appeal, turn in large part on the current financial status and management of the Funds. These bank statements are thus relevant to the parties’ reasoning and the Court’s analysis. As the Court previously explained, this case is now in federal court, and is no longer a purely private matter. See Dkt. No. 108 at 4. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that some of Respondents’ bank statements and financial documents identify the amount of money invested in specific companies. The identity of these companies is not, however, relevant to the public’s understanding of this case, and this limited amount of information may be sealed. Respondents also contend that some of the information should be sealed because it could cause irreparable harm to third-party portfolio companies by revealing their internal finances and operations and by identifying third-party individuals affiliated with the portfolio companies. See Dkt. No. 109 at 2–4. They urge that this could, in turn, harm Respondents’ ability to develop and maintain relationships with other portfolio companies. Although Respondents’ arguments are not information regarding specific portfolio companies are not necessary for the public’s understanding of these proceedings and may remain under seal. Document No. Portion(s) Sought Document Ruling Public/ (Sealed) to be Sealed Dkt. No. 109 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 16-7/ Petition to Confirm Page 6:3 DENIED. (Dkt. 16-4) Arbitration Award Dkt. 16- 6/ Final Arbitration Portions of: GRANTED IN PART and (Dkt. 16-3) Award DENIED IN PART (Harm to ¶¶ 257, 258, 267, third-party portfolio 268, 287, 319, companies and personnel not 321, 383, 420, involved with this proceeding 422, 423, 437, due in part to disclosure of 444, 499, 545, their internal finances and 546, 558 operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–22.) nn. 367, 1131, 1323 The following excerpts shall remain under seal: ¶¶ 240, 247, 264, 267, 268, 269, ¶¶ 240, 247, 264, 295, 448, 553, 557 267, 268, 269, 295, 448, 553, 557; ¶¶ 149, 188, 219, 240, 242, 245, ¶¶ 149, 188, 219, 246, 556, 574 240, 242, 245, 246, 556, 574;

nn. 126, 162, 284, and 285, 286, 288, 314, 319, 320, nn. 126, 162, 284, 321, 322, 323, 285, 286, 288, 314, 319, 320, 325, 326, 328, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 328, 329, 333, 334, 329, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 353, 360, 381, 386, 339, 340, 353, 387, 388, 399, 400, 401, 1247, 360, 381, 386, 1250, 1307, 1308, 1311, 1312, 387, 388, 399, 1313, 1319. 400, 401, 1247, 1250, 1307, 1308, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1319 Dkt. No. 35/ Respondents’ Page 11:1 GRANTED. (Harm to (Dkt. No. 34-3) Notice of Motion third-party portfolio and Motion to companies based on disclosure Vacate Arbitration of their internal finances and Award and operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 Opposition to at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–20.) Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Dkt. No. 35-2/ Fact Witness Portions of: GRANTED. (Harm to (Dkt. No. 34-4) Statement of third-party portfolio Andrew Chung ¶¶ 140, 148, 149, companies and personnel not 150, 151, 154, involved with this proceeding 155, 156, 158, 169 due in part to disclosure of their internal finances and ¶¶ 112, 153 operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–22.) Dkt. No. 35-6/ Expert Report Portions of: GRANTED. (Harm to (Dkt. No. 34-5) of Ilya Strebulaev third-party portfolio Table 5, Table 7, companies and personnel not Table 8 involved with this proceeding ¶¶ 97 due in part to disclosure of nn. 106, 130 their internal finances and Appendix C.3 operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–22.) Table 2, Table 4 Figure 5 nn. 81, 99 Appendix C.4 Dkt. No. 35-8/ Second Fact Portions of: GRANTED IN PART and (Dkt. No. 34-7) Witness Statement DENIED IN PART (Harm to of Andrew Chung ¶¶ 6, 7, 48, 49, 64 third-party portfolio companies and personnel not ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 31, 35, involved with this proceeding 36, 38, 64 due in part to disclosure of their n. 3 internal finances and operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 ¶ 21 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–22.) The following excerpts shall remain under seal:

¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 31, 35, 36, 38, 64 n. 3 ¶ 21 Dkt. No. 35-9/ Supplemental Portions of: GRANTED. (Harm to (Dkt. No. 34-8) Fact Witness third-party portfolio Statement of ¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 companies and personnel not Andrew Chung involved with this proceeding due in part to disclosure of their internal finances and operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–22.) Dkt. No. 35-11/ Respondents’ Portions of: GRANTED IN PART and (Dkt. No. 34-10) Post-Hearing DENIED IN PART (Harm to Brief n. 326 third-party portfolio nn. 9, 14 companies based on disclosure of their internal finances and operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–20.)

The following excerpts shall remain under seal: nn. 9, 14 Dkt. No. 35-18/ First Amended Portions of: GRANTED IN PART and (Dkt. No. 34-17) Demand for DENIED IN PART (Harm to Arbitration ¶ 20 third-party portfolio ¶ 40 companies based on disclosure of their internal finances and operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–20.)

The following excerpts shall remain under seal: ¶ 40 Dkt. No. 43-4/ Petitioners’ Page 7:20 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 43-3) Opposition to Page 31:15 Respondents’ Motion to Vacate Final Arbitration Award and Reply in Further Support of Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award Dkt. No. 41-6/ Claimant’s Portions of: GRANTED IN PART and (Dkt. No. 41-7) Post-Hearing DENIED IN PART (Harm to Brief pp. 16, 26 third-party portfolio companies based on disclosure ¶¶ 7, 31, 35, 41, of their internal finances and 90, 129, 176, 179, at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–20.) 197, 257, 259 The following excerpts shall nn. 76, 91 remain under seal: ¶¶ 64, 90 ¶¶ 64, 90 n. 101 n. 101 Dkt. No. 41-8/ Demand for Portions of: DENIED. (Dkt. No. 41-9) Arbitration ¶¶ 9, 33 n. 1 Dkt. No. 48-3/ Respondents’ Page 13:24–25 GRANTED. (Harm to (Dkt. No. 48-2) Reply in Support of third-party portfolio Motion to Vacate companies based on disclosure Arbitration Award of their internal finances and operations. See Dkt. No. 109-1 at ¶¶ 7–15, 18–20.) Dkt. No. 74-4/ Memorandum Pages 2:22–27; DENIED. (Dkt. No. 74-3) of Points and 3:1–2; Authorities in 3:14–16; 4:2–3; Support of Motion 17:4–12 for Preliminary Injunction Dkt. No. 74-6/ Declaration of Pages 2:18–21; DENIED. (Dkt. No. 74-5) Patrick Wong in 2:23–24; Support of 3:7–8; 3:10–11; Petitioners’ Motion 4:22–23; 4:27– for Preliminary 5:11; 5:13-18 Injunction (“Wong Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 70-4) Exhibit B to Entire Document. DENIED. Wong Decl. (Dkt. No. 70-5) Exhibit C to Entire Document DENIED. Wong Decl. (Dkt. No. 70-6) Exhibit D to Entire Document DENIED. Wong Decl. (Dkt. No. 70-7) Exhibit E to Entire Document DENIED. Wong Decl. Dkt. No. 81-4/ Petitioners’ Page 3:10–21; DENIED. (Dkt. No. 81-3) Opposition to 3:23–24 Respondents’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Dkt. No. 81-6/ Declaration of Page 1:11–14 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 81-5) Jason C. Lo in Support of Petitioners’ Administrative Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing and Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Lo Decl.”) Dkt. No. 81-8/ Exhibit P to Portions of Page 1 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 81-7) Lo Decl. Dkt. No. 81-10/ Exhibit Q to Portions of Page 1 GRANTED (Excerpts contain (Dkt. No. 81-9) Lo Decl. actual bank account numbers). Dkt. No. 81-12/ Administrative Pages 2:17–20; DENIED. (Dkt. No. 81-11) Motion to 2:24–27; Shorten Time for 3:12–14 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction Dkt. No. 81-14/ Declaration of Page 3:20–22 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 81-13) Andrew Behrman in Support of Petitioners’ Administrative Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing And Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Motion for Preliminary Dkt. No. 84-2/ Respondents’ 6:28–7:1 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 84-3) Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Dkt. No. 84-9/ Exhibit C to Portions of Pages DENIED. (Dkt. No. 84-10) Declaration of 1 and 2 David Cooper in Support of Respondents’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Dkt. No. 98-3/ Reply Brief in Pages 1:4–8; DENIED. (Dkt. No. 98-4) Support of Motion 1:12–13; 11:18– for Preliminary 22; 12:1–4; Injunction 12:14; 12:28– 13:1; 13:3–4; 13:10–12; 14:9 Dkt. No. 121 – TERMINATED AS MOOT Dkt. No. 122/ Petitioners’ Motion Excerpts TERMINATED AS MOOT (Dkt. Nos. 121-1, to Hold (Respondents are seeking to 121-3, 121-5, Respondents in seal smaller selections of 121-7, 121-9, Contempt & materials per Dkt. No. 131). 121-11, 121-13, Related 121-15, 121-17, Declarations and 121-19, 121-21, Exhibits 121-23, 121-25, 121-27, 121-29, 121-31, 121-33) Dkt. No. 131 – DENIED Dkt. No. 131-3/ Petitioners’ Motion Page 2:15 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 131-4) to Shorten Time for Contempt Hearing Dkt. No. 122-4/ Exhibit C to the Entire Document DENIED. (Dkt. No. 121-9) Declaration of Jason Lo in Support of Petitioners’ Motion to Hold Respondents in Contempt Dkt. No. 133 – TERMINATED AS MOOT Dkt. No. 134/ Petitioners’ Excerpts TERMINATED AS MOOT (Dkt. No. 133-1) Opposition to (Respondents are seeking to Respondents’ materials per Dkt. No. 144). Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Dkt. No. 144 – DENIED Dkt. No. 142-3/ Petitioners’ Page 12:3–4 DENIED. (Dkt. 142-4) Opposition to Page 13:26 Respondents’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees Dkt. No. 148 – TERMINATED AS MOOT Dkt. No. 149 and Petitioners’ Excerpts TERMINATED AS MOOT Dkt. No. 149-1/ Opposition to (Respondents are seeking to (Dkt. No. 148-1 Respondents’ seal smaller selections of and Dkt. No. Motion to Stay materials per Dkt. No. 151). 148-3) Judgment Pending Appeal and Declaration in Support of Opposition Dkt. No. 151 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Dkt. 151-3/ Petitioners’ Page 12:12, DENIED. (Dkt. 151-4) Opposition to 12:19–22, & n.6 Respondents’ Page 13:3–4 Motion to Stay Page 16:1–4, 16:8, Judgment Pending 16:11 Appeal Page 18:12, 18:22 Dkt. 151-5/ Declaration of Page 2:4–6, 2:15– GRANTED IN PART AND (Dkt. 151-6) Patrick Wong in 16, 2:22–23 DENIED IN PART. (Excerpts Support of Page 3:10, 3:20, contain actual bank account Petitioners’ 3:21 numbers). Opposition to Page 4:6, 4:19, Respondents’ 4:23 The following excerpts shall Motion to Stay Page 5:1–3, 5:5–6, remain under seal: Judgment Pending 5:9–23, 5:25–27 Appeal Page 6:1, 6:3–7, Page 4:19, 4:23, 5:3, 5:6, 5:9, 6:10, 6:12 6:7, 6:10, 6:12 Dkt. No. 152 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 153-2/ Exhibit A to Entire Document GRANTED IN PART AND (Dkt. No. 152-4) Cooper DENIED IN PART. (Only the Declaration identities of the companies in Support of invested in may remain under Reply in Support of seal to prevent harm based on Motion to Stay disclosure of their internal Judgment Pending finances and operations.) Appeal Dkt. No. 153-3/ Exhibit B to Entire Document GRANTED IN PART AND (Dkt. No. 152-6) Cooper DENIED IN PART. (Only the in Support of invested in may remain under Reply in Support of seal to prevent harm based on Motion to Stay disclosure of their internal Judgment Pending finances and operations.) Appeal As indicated in the table below, the parties also seek to seal information related to their respective motions for attorneys’ fees. See Dkt. Nos. 115, 117. Specifically, counsel seek to seal information regarding the discount they have provided the parties in this case on their billing rates. The Court accepts the parties’ arguments that such information is individually negotiated and could cause them competitive harm if made public. The Court applies the good cause standard and GRANTS the motions. Document No. Portion(s) Sought Document Ruling Public/ (Sealed) to be Sealed Dkt. No. 114 – GRANTED Dkt. No. 115/ Petitioners’ Motion Page 12:15–16 GRANTED (Contains (Dkt. No. 114-4) for Attorneys’ Fees Page 14:1 confidential and proprietary and Costs attorney billing and discount rates that could cause competitive harm to counsel, and prejudice billing arrangements with both existing and prospective clients). See Dkt. No. 114-1; Dkt. No. 114-2. Dkt. No. 115-1/ Declaration of Portions of ¶¶ 9, GRANTED (Contains (Dkt. No. 114-6) Cheryl Cauley in 12, 15, 18, and 21 confidential and proprietary Support of attorney billing and discount Petitioners’ Motion rates that could cause for Attorneys’ Fees competitive harm to counsel, and Costs and prejudice billing arrangements with both existing and prospective clients). See Dkt. No. 114-1. Dkt. No. 115-3/ Declaration of Portions of ¶¶ 7 GRANTED (Contains (Dkt. No. 114-8) Jason C. Lo in and 24, and the confidential and proprietary Support of table in ¶ 24. attorney billing and discount Petitioners’ Motion rates that could cause for Attorneys’ Fees competitive harm to counsel, arrangements with both existing and prospective clients). See Dkt. No. 114-2.

Dkt. No. 118 – GRANTED Dkt. No. 117-1/ Declaration of Page 1:17 GRANTED (Contains (Dkt. No. 118-3) David M. Cooper Page 2:4, 2:8, 2:14 confidential and proprietary in Support of attorney billing and discount Motion for rates that could cause Attorney’s Fees competitive harm to counsel, and prejudice billing arrangements with both existing and prospective clients). See Dkt. No. 118-1; Dkt. No. 118-2.

Petitioners also filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed as it relates to their reply in support of the motion to hold Respondents in contempt, and accompanying documents. See Dkt. No. 146. Petitioners note that these documents contain information that Respondents previously designated as confidential. See id. at 1. However, Respondents did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), because they did not file a declaration within seven days of the motion explaining the need for keeping the documents under seal. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3); see also Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The Court finds that sealing is therefore not warranted as to those documents. Document No. Portion(s) Sought Document Ruling Public/ (Sealed) to be Sealed Dkt. No. 146 – DENIED Dkt. No. 146-2/ Petitioners’ Reply Page 2:12–13 DENIED (Dkt. No. 146-1) in support of Page 10:14–22 (No supporting declaration Motion to Hold Page 13:24–26 filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).) Respondents in Contempt Dkt. No. 146-5/ Exhibit A to Entire document DENIED (Dkt. No. 146-4) Petitioners’ Reply (No supporting declaration in support of filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).) Motion to Hold Respondents in Contempt 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ administrative 3 motions to file under seal: 4 e Dkt. No. 109 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 5 e Dkt. Nos. 114 and 118 are GRANTED; 6 e Dkt. No. 121 is TERMINATED AS MOOT; 7 e Dkt. No. 131 is DENIED; 8 e Dkt. No. 133 is TERMINATED AS MOOT; 9 e Dkt. No. 144 is DENIED; 10 e Dkt. No. 146 is DENIED; 11 e Dkt. No. 148 is TERMINATED AS MOOT; 12 e Dkt. No. 151 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 13 e Dkt. No. 152 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 14 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the 15 administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the parties to 16 file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as indicated 17 in the charts above, within seven days from the date of this order. 19 ! Dated: 9/20/2023 20 Abspurd 8 Ml). 21 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28