Spears, Britney Jean - Conservatorship

Motion to Seal

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 1, 2008

o e 99 0 N a S N n n R a W N ( 3 1 0 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 p t p t — — p t p t p t x 17 ] a W w w o p t > L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 — ~ 1 F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , L L P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 B N N N N N N N N NB N N O 0 3 S N w n E a W N = © N o ® GERALDINE A, WYLE (SBN 89735) geraldine.wyle@ffslaw.com JERYLL S. COHEN (SBN 125392) jeryll.cohen@ffslaw.com FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 255-6100 Facsimile: (310) 255-6200 Attorneys for James P. Spears, Co-Conservator of the Estate and Conservator of the Person ANDREW M. WALLET, ESQ. (SBN 93043) Attorney at Law P.O. Box 351237 Los Angeles, California 90035 Telephone: (805) 987-7198 Facsimile: (805) 388-7640 E-Mail: andrew@walletlaw.com Co-Conservator of the Estate SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT In re the Conservatorship of the Estate of BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS Conservatee. Case No. BP 108870 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; PETITION FOR ITS SETTLEMENT AND FOR APPROVAL THEREOF; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Date: November 8, 2017 [RESERVED] Time: 10:00 AM Dept: 99 Judge: Hon. Brenda Penny, Judge Pro Tem 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 o e 0 0 a N T s a W N N N N N N N O N N O N e e m m j t e m e m he e e m e m e d W@ W 0 A N N N E R W N = S Y 0 d N E R W O N e m e s TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on November 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 99 ofthis Court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, James P. Spears, Conservator of the Person and Co-Conservator of the Estate of Britney Jean Spears, by and through his attorneys of record, and Andrew M. Wallet, Co-Conservator of the Estate of Britney Jean Spears (jointly, the “Conservators™), shall move the Court for an Orderto seal portions ofthe pleadings including and relating to the Ninth Account Current; Report of Co- Conservatorsfor the Estate; Petition for Its Settlement and for Approval Thereof (“the Petition”) and the supporting documents to the Ninth Account Currentfiled conditionally under seal concurrently with or following the filing of this Motion to Seal (the “Accounting”). The Accounting contains information that relates to or reveals trade secrets, proprietary information, attorney-client communications, and medical and personal information relating to Ms. Spears and her minor children. This Motion seeks an order to file trade secret, proprietary information, attorney-client communications, and sensitive information of a personal nature relating to Ms. Spears and her minor children contained in the Accounting in a sealed form. The public’s interest in access is satisfied here because the public has had and will have access to the unredacted portions of the Accounting and to the Court’s file relating to the proceedings in this matter, including the redacted Accounting filed in this Estate and the numerous pleadings filed with this Court which provide sufficient insight into the Co-Conservators’ performance of their duties. This Motion is brought on the grounds that 1) there is no constitutional right to public access of conservatorship proceedings; 2) the Conservatee’s right to attorney-client communications and to medical privacy are per se confidential in nature, and the courts must keep medical information confidential in a myriad of situations as a matter of law; therefore, Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 do not apply; and 3) the overriding interest of the Conservatee’s right to privacy regarding her trade secret, proprietary information and sensitive information of a personal nature relating to Ms. Spears and her minor children vastly outweighs the right of the 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. N o 0 N N h h E a W N p p m k m k e k h h & W W N N = (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 J a F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L o S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 N O N N O N N N N N N E m m e W W ~ N 1 & A R W O N = 2 B w e e public’s access to the records; 4) the overriding interest supports the Court’s Sealing Order; 5) it is a virtual certainty that the Conservatee’s overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records in question here are not sealed; and 6) there are no less restrictive means to protect the Conservatee’s overriding interest. The only conclusion under current statutory and case authority, the California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.550(d), and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178,is that Ms. Spears’ trade secrets, proprietary information, attorney-client communications, personal or medical information, and information pertaining to Ms. Spears’ minor children contained in the Accounting should be ordered sealed as filed. This Motionis based on this Notice of Motion and Motion and the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of this Motion, as well as all papers, pleadings and documents on file in this case, and on such oral testimony and argument as may be offered at the time ofthe hearing on this Motion. DATED: September 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW M. WALLET FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 3 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 A h e e W N ~ J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Table of Contents Table of Authorities I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND [II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO CONSERVATORSHIP PROCEEDINGS B. ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDICAL INFORMATION ARE CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW C. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER THE ACCOUNTING TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL UNDER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 2.550 AND 2.551 I. The California Constitution Guarantees the Right to Privacy. 2. The Overriding Interests Support Sealing the Record. 3. There Is a Substantial Probability That the Overriding Interests Will Be Prejudiced If the Record Is Not Sealed. 4. The Proposed Sealing Is as Narrowly Tailored as Possible, and No Less Restrictive Means Exist to Achieve the Overriding Interests. IV. CONCLUSION. Page(s) ii x 11 12 12 13 iNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNTCURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. e o 0 3 a N n h R e W N j u t j k m k p t p e e d h h a W N = (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 J a F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L o S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 3 0 0 6 7 N N N N N N N N N = ® 3 8 4 R R 8 B R m R 8 % = » 3 Table of Authorities Cases Page(s) 2,022 Ranch, LLC v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1388 6 BoardofMedical Quality Assurance v. Gheradini (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 678 5 In re Marriage ofBurkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054-57 2 De Los Santos v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 677 6 Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin (7th Cir. 1997) 112 F.3d 869, 872 8 Johnson v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1068 6 NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc. v. Superior Court (1999), 20 Cal. 4th at 1212 & n.30 2,6,7,9 People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 414, 425 3,4 People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1024 6,8 People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 509 6 Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 440-41 6 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 478 U.S. 1, 8 (“Press-Enterprise II") 2,3 Statutes Cal. Const., Art. I, §1 7 California Civil Code §§ 56 4 California Civil Code § 3426.1(d) 9 California Rules of Court 2.550(d) 4,6,7,8,12,1 California Rules of Court 2.551 6,9,13 Evidence Code §§950-962 6 Probate Code § 1800 2,5 Family Code § 1818(b) 9 Probate Code § 1826 5 Family Code § 1830(a) 9 Probate Code § 1851 5 Welf. and Inst. Code, §5000, et seq.) 5 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6 4,5 ii NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. Lo s AN GE LE S, CA LI FO RN IA 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 $ e 0 N a S A h h A a W N N O O N O N E m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m N = © 0 0 a N n E a W w N e o 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION By this Motion, James P. Spears, Conservator ofthe Person and Co-Conservator of the Estate of Britney Jean Spears, and Andrew M. Wallet, Co-Conservator ofthe Estate of Britney Jean Spears(jointly, the “Conservators™), respectfully request that the Court issue an order sealing portions of the pleadingsrelating to the Eighth Account Current; Report of Co-Conservators for the Estate; Petition for Its Settlement and for Approval Thereof and supporting documents filed concurrently with or following the filing of this Motion to Seal (the “Accounting”). The Accounting contains personal and medical information relating to Conservatee Britney Jean Spears (“Ms. Spears”) and her minorchildren, as well as trade secrets,attorney-client communications, and proprietary information ofMs. Spears. II. BACKGROUND Temporary Letters of Conservatorship evidencing the appointment ofthe Conservators ofMs. Spears’ Estate and Person were issued on February 1, 2008 and were extended several times until the Conservators’ appointment as Permanent Conservators ofher Person and Estate on October 28, 2008. Permanent Letters ofConservatorship were issued on January 9, 2009. The public has had and will have access to unredacted portions of the Accounting, as well as the redacted Accountingsfiled in this Estate, and the numerous pleadings filed by the Conservators which provide direct insight into the Co-Conservators’ performance oftheir duties. The redacted information contained in the Accounting relates to or reveals proprietary, financial, personal information, and attorney-client communications, as well as personal or medical information relating to Ms. Spears, and information pertaining to Ms. Spears’ minor children (the “Confidential Terms”). The Conservators request that the redacted portions ofthe Accounting be filed in a sealed form to protect the Confidential Terms. Declaration of Geraldine Wyle (“Wyle Declaration”), 994, 7. 1 i" 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 e o 0 N N A n T A e W N m e N O N N e e m e m m k e m e e e d e m j e N N = © 8 0 a a W n E a W N = e 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO CONSERVATORSHIP PROCEEDINGS The public has no constitutional right of access to conservatorship proceedings. In NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1212 & n.30, the California Supreme Court held that “in general, the First Amendment provides a right ofaccess to ordinary civil trials and proceedings,” but it acknowledged that its opinion “address[ed] . . . the right ofaccess to ordinary civil proceedings in general, and not any right of access to particular proceedings governed by specific statutes.” Id. at 1212 & n. 30 NBC Subsidiary recognized that, as a matter of United States Supreme Court authority, the determination whether “proceedings are sufficiently different from ‘ordinary civil trials and proceedings’ to justify a different conclusion on the right of access”requires consideration ofwhether open proceedings (1) are supported by historical tradition and (2) would promote utilitarian considerations. In re Marriage ofBurkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054- 57. Stated otherwise, “[i]n determining whether the Constitutional right of access attaches to a particular proceeding, the United States Supreme Court has set forth two related considerations: first, whether the place and process historically have been open to the public and, second, whether public access plays a significant positive role in the particular process.” People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 414, 425 (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 478 U.S. 1, 8 (“Press-Enterprise II”). Consideration of these two factors demonstrates that there is no First Amendment right of public accessto the redacted portions ofthe Accounting at issue here. The Accounting, which discloses Ms. Spears’ financial information, material contractual information and strategies, as well as personal or medical information relating to Ms. Spears, and Ms. Spears’ minor children, is brought in a conservatorship proceeding governed by Probate Code § 1800 er seq. (Wyle Declaration, §4. Those portions ofthe Accounting that contain information relating to or revealing very personal medical and confidential matters, has a long history of Constitutional protection, as more fully discussed below. i" 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L o S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 N o 0 N a A i h A W N N O N O N N N N N N e m e e e m o m j m e m p m e m ® 3 S Q W h E W R N m S Y ® a S n h P R G R R = Turning to the second factor, public access to the redacted portions ofthe Accounting would undermine the goal of proceedings in a conservatorship regarding the conservatee’s personal medical and confidential information. As the Dixon court noted: “... [Involuntary civil commitment proceedings typically are closed proceedings. Because such proceedings . . . involve primarilypersonal and confidential matters. As with juvenile dependency proceedings, while openness would expose any deficiencies and allow for improvements in the process, it would seriously undermine the goals involved in these cases.” Dixon, 148 Cal. App. 4th at 427-28 (emphasis added). The Court in Dixon noted that there is no right of the public to attend juvenile dependency proceedings. Based upon this same analysis, the Dixon court found that “[t]he two considerations . . . set forth in Press-Enterprise II . . . appear to weigh against extending public right of access to involuntary civil commitment proceedings.” Id. at 428. The reasoning ofthe Dixon court is directly applicable here, as the Conservatee’s personal and confidential information and that ofher minor children is being provided to the Court to provide added context to the Accounting. Denial ofpublic accessto the redacted portions ofthe Accounting is supported by the fact that such access would impede the willingness ofthe Co-Conservators,the attorneys and the medical professionals to provide their services. Furthermore, the Conservatee has a full expectation ofand a Constitutional right to privacy with respect to her health and medical records and information, notwithstanding the existence ofthe Conservatorship. The incursion on her Constitutional right to privacy must be narrowly tailored to the purpose ofthe Conservatorship, to protect and ensure the health, privacy and well-being of the Conservatee. Further, the Co- Conservators are not providing the Accounting to support any requestfor relief from the Court relating to the Conservatee’s health. The dissemination of the Confidential Information to the public at large would violate Ms. Spears’, as well as her minor children’s, privacy rights. Our Supreme Court has held that the: 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , L L P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 8 0 0 L o S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 0 a S h R a W N = N O N R N e m m k e m j m je m e m f k je m m k N N = O S 8 0 3 A E W N e o 23 24 25 26 27 28 “[1]egally recognized privacy interests are generally oftwo classes: (1) interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse ofsensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’); and (2) interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation,intrusion, or interference (‘autonomy privacy’). ” Informationalprivacy is the core value furthered by the Privacy Initiative. (White v. Davis, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 774.) A particular class of information is private when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control overits dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassmentor indignity. Such norms create a threshold reasonable expectation ofprivacy in the data at issue Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35. Further, the California courts have held that in order to protect the right of privacy, “it is appropriate to seal certain records when those particular records contain highly sensitive ... personal information about individuals.” People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1024. Additionally, the Confidential Information is within the following zones of privacy that have been recognized, among others, deserving protection against discovery, to which persons wholly unrelated to the Confidential Information, as well as Ms. Spears and her minor children,are entitled: ® Estate planning (Appellants contended “that [living] stepmother’s will and testamentary documents were discoverable to show an agreement to transmute property. The trial court correctly ruled that the documents “are protected from discovery based upon the broad right of privacy set forth in the Constitution.” Estate ofGallio (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 592, 597); ° Minors (See Family Code §1818); and ° Tax return information (CA Govt. Code, §§7460-7493, 26 U.S. Code §6103). For these reasons, the Court should find that there is no First Amendmentright of public access to the redacted portions ofthe Accounting, and on this basis alone, should order portions of the Accounting sealed without the need to consider the factors set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550(d). B. ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDICAL INFORMATION ARE CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.550(2) states: “These rules do not apply to records that are 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 N e 0 0 N I A U n a W N N O O N E s E m E m E m e m e m e k e m e m N = © ® N n A W N e O O 23 24 25 26 27 28 required to be kept confidential by law.” Documents that are protected by the attorney-client communications and medical information are precisely the types ofconfidential records which are required by law in numerous contexts to be kept confidential. . See Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108 (“[a} document which is protected by the lawyer-client privilege is not subjectto the rule 243.1 et seq. findings requirements. (Rule 243.1(a)(2)")" The Conservatee’sright to maintain in confidence her medical information is protected under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (the “CMIA”), California Civil Code §§ 56 et seq. Ms. Spears’ privacy interests in information concerning her medical information is further evidenced by the fact that under HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, medical personnel are prohibited from releasing such information. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6. While that Act’s disclosure restrictions are directed at “health care providers,” see Cal. Civ. Code § 56.10(a), the privacy protections afforded by the Act are relevant to the Court’s determination whetherto seal these proceedings. Certain redacted portions of the Accounting include or relate to Conservatee’s confidential medical information, the type of information thatis protected from disclosure by the CMIA. Wyle Declaration, 14. The Court ofAppeal in People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 414 statesthat “the court cannot serve as a conduit through which confidential information is transmitted to other membersofthe public.” Id. at 429. The court in Dixon held that in a civil commitment proceeding, while psychological reports (which were not provided by a treating physician, but rather by two practicing physicians who were retained specifically for the purpose of making evaluation reports for the court and the parties) can be used during the proceedings, they nonetheless retain their confidential nature and should not be made available to the public.” /d. In an analogous situation, conservatorships under the Lanterman Petris Short (“LPS”) Act (Welf. and Inst. Code, §5000, et seq.) are not public unless the parties request otherwise. By their nature, the LPS Conservatorship proceedings involve highly confidential ! Rule 243.1(a)}(2) has been renumbered as Rule 2.550(a)(2). 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. o e 0 N a A E A W N ( 3 1 0 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 — — p t — p t — J k a [7 ] E Y W w N o pt . = L o S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 J ~ 1 F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 N N N N N N N N O N E m a S n R W N = D S 9 medical information, including without limitation psychiatric information, under consideration by the Court. Those proceedings involve individuals who are likely not legally capable ofmaking informed waivers. Similarly, in conservatorship proceedings pursuant to Probate Code section 1800, ef seq., Probate Code section 1826(n) makes confidential the Court Investigator’s Report, which is analogousto a report by a court-appointed expert under Evidence Code section 730. In fact, Probate Code section 1826(/) provides that the Court Investigator’s Report is served only on those persons prescribed in that section. Importantly, under Probate Code section 1851(b)(2), confidential medical information obtained and reported by the court investigator is not even permitted to be provided to the conservatee’s spouse or registered domestic partner or the conservatee’s relatives. This kind of private medical information, which is not even permitted by law to be disseminated to a conservatee’s relatives or spouse, simply cannot be available by right to the public, most particularly because a conservatee — under a protective proceeding — is adjudged unable to make an informed decision waiving his or herright to privacy relating to the public dissemination of medical information. Federal law also dictates that the Conservatee has the right to maintain the confidentiality of his or her medical information. See 42 U.S.C. §1320d-6 (HIPAA), which makes it an offense to sell, transfer or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, punishable to fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years. The California Constitution, Article I, declares, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll people ... have inalienable rights. Among these are ... pursuing and obtaining ... privacy.” California legislators have placed much oftheir focus in the enactment of privacy legislation relating to medical information. “A person’s medical history undoubtedly falls within the recognized zones of privacy.” Johnson v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1068. Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 440-41 (“[i]t is well settled that the zone of privacy created by [the California Constitution] extend[s] to the details ofa patient’s medical ... history”); Boardof Medical Quality Assurance v. Gheradini (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 678 (“[a] person’s medical profile is an area ofprivacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in quality and nature than 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 S A U n e e W N R t 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 many areas already judicially recognized and protected”). In order to protect the right of privacy, “it is appropriate to seal certain records when those particular records contain highly sensitive ... personal information about individuals.” People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1024. Similarly, the Conservators’ right to maintain in confidence their attorney-client communications to the extent any filed information reveals attorney-client communication is protected by attorney-client privilege as specifically codified in Evidence Code §§950-962. In substance, the Code authorizes a client to refuse to disclose, and to prevent others from disclosing, confidential communications between the attorney and the client unless the client waives the privilege. See De Los Santos v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 677; People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 509. Except as otherwise set forth in the Evidence Code,the privilege is absolute, and production may not be ordered based on relevance or particular facts of a case. 2,022 Ranch, LLC v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1388. C. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER THE ACCOUNTING TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL UNDER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 2.550 AND 2.551 Assuming arguendo that the public has a First Amendment right of access to conservatorship proceedings - which it does not - and that Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 even apply — which they do not — this Court’s decision whether to seal all of the Accounting is subjectto the standards and procedures set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551. Under California Rule of Court 2.550(d), which is based on the standards enunciated by the California Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178 (“NBC™), a court may seal the record “if it expressly finds facts that establish’: n) There exists an overriding interest that overcomesthe 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; “) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No lessrestrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 N o 0 N a A N n h A W N N N N e m E m e m e m e m e m j e p m e m j e N = © N Y 0 a N N E a W N = D 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id.;see also Advisory Committee Comment to Cal. R. Court 2.550 (“Courts have found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacyinterests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute ‘overriding interests’). All five factors are present here. 1. The California Constitution Guarantees the Right to Privacy. The California Constitution guarantees Ms. Spears and her minor children a right to privacy, and Ms. Spears’ and her minor children’s interest in their right to privacy overcomes the public’s generalright of access. See Cal. Const., Art. I, §1 (“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are . . . pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy.”). For that reason, the Conservators seek to seal the trade secrets and proprietary information, personal and medical information of Ms. Spears, and personal information regarding Ms. Spears’ minor children that are directly or indirectly revealed or referenced in the redacted portions of the Accounting. Personal Affairs. Ms. Spears has a right of privacy with respect to her personal and medical information and personal information regarding her minor children. The California Constitution guarantees Ms. Spears’ and her minor children’s right to privacy as to such information. In addition, California law recognizes that an individual has a privacyright to personal information. See Cal. Rule of Court 2.550. Even if there were a First Amendmentright of public access to medical, personal or private information in conservatorship proceedings -- which there is not -- the right of public access may be overcome where there “exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of accessto the record.” Cal. R. Court 2.550(d). See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178. Here,the redacted portions of the Accounting reveal information regarding Ms. Spears’ personallife, including, without limitation, certain medical information, and information pertaining to her minor children and herchildren’s activities -- information which,in light of the unprecedented media attention given to Ms. Spears, will be widely disseminated if filed publicly. 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 a W N w h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ms. Spearshas an overriding interest in maintaining the confidentiality ofher personal information and that of her minor children and, for that reason, the Conservators seek to seal Ms. Spears’ personal information, including medical information, information regarding her family’s activities and information regarding Ms. Spears’ minor children, that is revealed in the redacted portions ofthe Accounting. Wyle Declaration, 174, 6, 7. The Court ofAppeal, Second District held, in People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1024,that sealing documents containing sensitive personal information was proper,citing Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin (7th Cir. 1997) 112 F.3d 869, 872, “[‘acknowledging that it may have been appropriate for the district court to seal psychiatric records that though pertinentto the suit would have been “highly embarrassing to the average person.’].” Id. Asin People v. Jackson, in balancing the constitutional right to privacy against the public’s right of access to court proceedings, the balance lies heavily on the side of protecting the Conservatee’s privacy rights in this case relating to her medical information. Additionally, there is no legitimate reason for the public to have access to any information about the Conservatee’s personal and medical information. Such information would undoubtedly fuel widespread publicity and the ability to obtain access to her or her children,as evidenced by the publicity surrounding this conservatorship since its inception and numerous instances of harassment. That publicity would be highly injurious to the Conservatee’s health and well-being, as well as the health and well-being ofher minorchildren. Ms. Spears has two overriding interests, any of which, by itself,is sufficient to support the sealing ofthese proceedings: (1) Ms. Spears’ right of privacy with regard to her personal and private information, as well as her medical information and (2) the detrimental affect ofthe public disclosure of personal and medical information is likely to have on Ms. Spears. See Cal. R. Court 2.550(d)(1); People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1024. Ms. Spears has a rightto privacy that overcomesthe public’s right of general access. Here,the redacted portions ofthe Accounting reveal the Conservatee’s medical and personal information, which,in light of the unprecedented media attention given to the Conservatee, would be widely disseminatedif filed publicly and put the Conservatee and her children at risk. The Conservatee has an overriding 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , L L P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 e o 0 N a a N n n A W N N O O N O N R N R R N N N N N O m m m m m m p m p m be d m d pe d N D 8& 8 O U R R © 8 B R R 8 % 2 » 3 5 2 R G o R = = interest in maintaining the absolute confidentiality ofthis information. Wyle Declaration, 14, 6. See People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1024 and Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin (7th Cir. 1997) 112 F.3d 869, 872, in which the courts approved the sealing of medical records on the basis that they would have been highly embarrassing to the average person. Ms. Spears’ minor children also have a right ofprivacy relating to their personal affairs. Here, the Accounting that may be conditionally filed under seal will necessarily reveal information relating to the minor children’s personal life, which, again, will be widely disseminated if filed publicly due to the unprecedented media attention givento this Conservatorship matter even though the minor children are not the subjects ofthis proceeding. Further, sealing ofthe record is required in family conciliation court pursuant to Family Code section 1818(b). While the Probate Court is not family conciliation court, jurisdiction ofthe family conciliation court exists in custody matters under Family Code section 1830(a). Any issue relating to custodyraised in the Family Court pursuant to Family Code section 1818(b) must remain sealed in all subsequently filed documents, as set forth in California Rule of Court 2.551(e)(4). Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information. Ms. Spears and her Estate have an overriding interest in maintaining the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information. Thus, the Conservators seek to seal the trade secrets and proprietary information revealed in the Accounting. The insight that the Confidential Termsin the redacted portions ofthe Accounting may provide to third parties would be detrimental to Ms. Spears’ interests. Wyle Declaration, 8. Among other things, Ms. Spears’ and her Estate’s bargaining positions and potential bottom lines may have economic value to Ms. Spears, her Estate and to third parties, which would be lost should the Confidential Terms be generally known to the public. Jd. In addition, Ms. Spears and her Estate have a proprietary interest in controlling the release of information concerning Ms. Spears’ musical, artistic, works and ideas. California law recognizesthat the protection of trade secrets is an overriding interest that is a valid reason for restricting public access to documents. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 V o Q a S N n h A Ww W N e N O N N N N N O N N O N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e k j e 0 J a t h A W N m S N O 0 0 N N E W N = m O D TV), Inc., 20 Cal. 4th at 1222 n.46. Bystatute, a “trade secret” is “information”that (1) “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to the other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use” and (2) “[i}s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). The Accounting reveals information regarding the proprietary, competitive information and musical, artistic works and ideas, the disclosure ofwhich would be harmful to Ms. Spears and her business and musical activities. Knowledge ofthese Confidential Terms would allow others to leverage that information in future negotiations and could potentially reduce the value or potential value for Ms. Spears ofherartistic and musical works. Wyle Declaration, 114, 8. Disclosure of Ms. Spears’ and her Estate’s trade secrets (i.e., its negotiating strategy, material terms ofits business agreements, and information from which those material terms could be substantially deduced, including certain information regarding assets and liabilities) would damage Ms. Spears’ and her Estate’s negotiating ability in future business dealings with third parties. For example, assume it is revealed to the public that the Conservators entered an agreement with the Widget Corporation (“Widget”) for a license to produce Britney Spears widgets for “x number of dollars,” with an advance of “y number of dollars,” for a term of “z years,” limited to the United Statesterritory. Later, the Conservators begin negotiations for a similar license with the Gadget Corporation (“Gadget”). Gadget knows all of the terms ofthe license agreement the Conservators entered into with the Widget Corporation because those terms were made public. With this knowledge, the Gadget has a superior bargaining position to the Conservators because it knows the terms that the Conservator accepted in Widget agreement. Gadget will use the “x” and “y”figures used in the Widget dealas the ceiling for the amountthat it will be willing to spend to obtain a similar license from Ms. Spears or her Estate, and it will use the “2” number ofyears as a floor from which to negotiate the term ofthe contract, all to the detriment ofMs. Spears and her Estate. Ms. Spears would thereby be disadvantaged in relation to her competitors. 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 L e 9 0 a a N h h A W O N e m N O N N N N N N N e e e m e m e m e m p — ® O S U B b h W O N m S © ® a a h E G O R A = In addition, the uncertainty as to whether material negotiable terms ofthird parties’ contracts with Ms. Spears or her Estate would be made public by the Court would deter parties from contracting with the Conservators and/or from offering the Conservators favorable terms they might otherwise be willing to offer if kept private. For example, the Widget Corporation’s trade secrets (i.e., its negotiating position and whatit is willing to pay for a particularright or product and the termsit is willing to give under such arrangement) would be known to its potential contracting parties and its competitors, as well as its current business partners. Competitors would therefore have the knowledge and opportunity to adjust their proposals and negotiations with the Widget Corporation’s current and potential future business partnersin order to improve their bargaining position and possibly take business away from the Widget Corporation. Existing business partners could become dissatisfied iftheir terms are less favorable than those ofMs. Spears or her Estate. Where negotiations are ongoing, Ms. Spears’ interested would immediately be placed at a tactical disadvantage by public disclosure. For these reasons,ifthe Conservators were unable to obtain an order sealing the material terms of this agreement, contracting parties, Ms. Spears’ competitors and other potential parties to agreements could well determine that it would be economically risky, or even detrimental, to enter into negotiations with the Conservators, and such a ruling would have a significant chilling effect on the Conservators’ ability to negotiate favorable terms for Ms. Spears or her Estate in a wide range of transactions. In summary, disclosure ofthe information ofthe redacted portions of the Accounting relating to Ms. Spears’ trade secrets and business dealings would effectively disclose to the public Ms. Spears’, her Estate’s, and their contracting parties’ trade secrets and proprietary and competitive information, which would be harmful to Ms. Spears and her Estate. Wyle Declaration, §8. Disclosure ofthis information would give third parties an unfair competitive advantage over Ms. Spears and her Estate in future business dealings and would deter potential parties from contracting with them. This is particularly important in the instant matter, as Ms. Spears looks forward to a long and productive career. If these redacted portions of the Accounting were made public, revelations of a public nature could have a long-term, deleterious impact. 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , ti p 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 8 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 8 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 e o 0 0 3 A N n h A W N N N N N N R N N O N O N e m oe m m m m m op m e m e m Unless the redacted portions ofthe Accounting are sealed, the confidential, proprietary information contained in the Accounting will undoubtedly be widely disseminated, harming Ms. Spears by revealing trade secrets, impinging on herright to privacy, and interfering with herability to effectively transact future business. 2. The Overriding Interests Support Sealing the Record. There are “overriding interests” in maintaining the confidentiality ofthe Confidential Terms revealed in the redacted portions ofthe Accounting that overcome the public’s generalright ofaccess to the record, and a sealing orderis necessary to protect these overriding interests. See Cal. R. Court 2.550(d). The business affairs ofMs. Spears and her Estate would be compromised by public disclosure of the Confidential Terms. Furthermore, Ms. Spears’ privacy and safety, and the privacy and safety of her minor children, will be jeopardized if her personal information and the personal information regarding her minorchildren are disclosed to the public without a sealing order. Filing the Accounting in a sealed form is the only way to ensure the confidentiality ofthe trade secrets and proprietary information, attorney-client communications, personal and medical information, and personal information regarding Ms. Spears’ minor children that are directly or indirectly revealed or referenced in the Petition. Otherwise, Ms. Spears and her Estate would suffer a competitive disadvantage, and Ms. Spears’ and her minor children’s privacy and safety would suffer. 3. There Is a Substantial Probability That the Overriding Interests Will Be Prejudiced If the Record Is Not Sealed. Asillustrated above, given the unprecedented media attention given to this matter, Ms. Spears’ interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed in the manner requested. See Cal. R. Court 2.550(d)(2), (3). It is virtually certain that, in the absence of a sealing order, the confidential information in the redacted portions of the Accounting would be disseminated, thereby revealing the trade secrets and proprietary information of Ms. Spears and her Estate, attorney-client communications, and personal, private information regarding Ms. Spears and her minor children to their prejudice. Wyle Declaration, §7. It is also virtually certain that in the absence of a sealing order, the Confidential 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , L L P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 a o Q W a a A u n A W N N O O N O N O N O N O N N N N e m e m E m E m E m pe d e k be d e m 0 J A W U A W N = m 8 0 N N A W N = O o Terms would be disseminated, thereby revealing attorney-client communications,the trade secrets, and proprietary information of Ms. Spears and her Estate and personal, private information regarding Ms. Spears and her minor children to their prejudice. Wyle Declaration, 97. 4, The Proposed Sealing Is as Narrowly Tailored as Possible, and No Less Restrictive Means Exist to Achieve the Overriding Interests. The proposed sealing is as narrowly tailored as possible, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. See Cal. R. Court 2.550(d)(4), (5). Information has been publicly filed that discloses all but the most confidential information relating to Ms. Spears’ finances and career, her personal information and the personal information of her minor children. (See the public court file). The Conservators redacted the minimum information necessary from these documents to protect attorney-client communications, as well as Ms. Spears’ trade secrets and proprietary information, and personal information regarding Ms. Spears and her minor children, thus accommodating the public’s interest in accessto these records. The redacted portions of the Accounting haverelatively minimal value to the public, but could be used by third parties to Ms. Spears’ great disadvantage. Accordingly, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 authorize sealing the Accounting. For the reasons discussed above, Ms. Spears’ privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information concerning her or her Estate’s business dealings, attorney-client communications, trade secrets and proprietary information, as well as personal and medical information regarding Ms. Spears and her minor children, may be protected only byfiling pleadings that contain the Confidential Terms underseal. 1 7 i" i i 1" i" 7 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 a W N - - E E | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Conservators respectfully request that the Court issue an Order allowing the redacted portions of the Accounting to be filed under seal. The Accounting discloses and relates to Ms. Spears’ and her Estate’s trade secrets and proprietary information, attorney-client communications, and personal and medical information regarding Ms. Spears and her minorchildren and, on that basis,filing the redacted portions of the Accounting undersealis appropriate. DATED: September 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW M. WALLET PeFREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP CNA — ERA AlWYEE U7 or James P. Spears, Co-Conservator of lr fate and Conservator ofthe Person 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 8 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 A Uh h a W N ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF GERALDINE A. WYLE I, GERALDINE A. WYLE, declare: 1. Iam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am an attorney at the law firm Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, LLP, counsel of record for James P. Spears (“Mr. Spears”), conservator ofthe person and co-conservator ofthe estate. 2. Andrew M. Wallet, Esq. (“Mr. Wallet”),is the other co-conservator ofthe estate. Collectively, Mr. Spears and Mr. Wallet may be referred to as the “Conservators.” Except as otherwise stated, the statements contained herein are based on my personal knowledge and experience. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to those facts. 3. In connection with the Conservators’ Ninth Account Current, Report of James P. Spears and Andrew M. Wallet, Co-Conservators ofthe Estate; Petition for its Settlement and for Approval Thereof, the Conservators may be lodging orfiling additional documents or records conditionally under seal (collectively, the “Accounting”). 4. The Conservators will file portions of the Accounting conditionally underseal because portions ofthe Accountings relate to or reveal or tend to reveal medical and personal information,attorney-client communications and sensitive information of a personal nature relating to the Conservatee and her minor children contained in the sealed portions of the Accounting. As well, the Accounting relate to or reveal or tend to revealprivate tax return information thatis confidential under the Internal Revenue Code; information regarding litigation; operation and information of the Conservatee’s business and potential business development and plans that are protected trade secrets or proprietary information; and attorney-client communications (the "Confidential Terms"). With regard to the Confidential Terms relating to the Conservatee’s business, the sealed information contains proprietary and competitive information. 5. The Conservators and their counsel take extraordinary efforts to maintain the confidentiality of information relating to the Conservatorship Estate and the Conservatee’s business. The Conservators require the execution of confidentiality agreements by agents, employees, service providers, vendors and other people who might come into contact with 16 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K EA ST , SU IT E 1 9 0 0 L o S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 (3 10 ) 25 5- 61 00 L o 0 0 N a a n n R W N e N O O N N O N O N O N O N O N O E m m m m k e d pe t p m p m f k e m G C 1 h h A W N = S P 0 0 a A W N e Confidential Information. Measures are taken to store Confidential Information in mannerthat protectsit from disclosure. 6. The Conservatorship Estate has an overriding interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the medical and personal information relating to the Conservatee and her minor children, as well as the attorney client communications, attorney work product, trade secrets, proprietary information and litigation strategy, which are directly or indirectly revealed in the Accounting. 7. Given the unprecedented attention given to the Conservatee and the Conservatorship Estate by the media and fans, it is virtually certain that the Confidential Information would be widely disseminated if the Confidential Information in the Accounting were filed publicly. 8. The proposed sealing set forth in the redacted pleadings filed concurrently with this Motion to Seal is as narrowly tailored as possible, and no less restrictive means exist to protect the Estate’s overriding interests adequately. The Conservators have filed the Accounting without redaction and have lodged and filed conditionally under seal, the minimum information necessary to protect the Estate’s Confidential Information. The Accounting will make available to the public all but the most confidential information. Among other things, the Petition discloses the amount of compensation sought by the lawyers, the identity of the attorneys involved and the general nature ofthe services for which compensation is sought. The detailed information that will be lodged and filed conditionally under seal, is ofrelatively minimal value to the public, but could be used by third parties to the Estate’s disadvantage. The public’s interest in access to these proceedings will be satisfied if the Court grants this Motion because the Accounting will be completely available to the public, as will the Court’s Order on the Accounting. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 6, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. Va GERALDINE A. WYLE 17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; ETC. L o 9 0 N N A W N (3 10 ) 2 5 5 - 6 1 0 0 J t f d [ = p o j t J t j — A nM es W N =m os L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 p k ~ F R E E M A N , F R E E M A N & S M I L E Y , LL P 1 8 8 8 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U I T E 1 8 0 0 N N O N R N N N N N N e e W W N N A A n h E W N = o 8 ® PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time ofservice, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Iam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, California 90067. On September 8, 2017, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL PLEADINGS RELATING TO THE NINTH ACCOUNT CURRENT; REPORT OF CO-CONSERVATORS FOR THE ESTATE; PETITION FOR ITS SETTLEMENT AND FOR APPROVAL THEREOF; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES onthe interested partiesin this action as ollows: Via Federal Express Via Federal Express Samuel D. Ingham, III Britney J. Spears 444 South Flower Street, Suite 4260 c/o Samuel D. Ingham, ITI Los Angeles, CA 90071-2966 444 South Flower Street, Suite 4260 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2966 Courtesy copies to, via Federal Express: Via U.S. Mail Andrew M. Wallet Probate Court Investigator Attorney at Law Attn: Leah Hahn or Kimberly Grant 2551 La Sierra Court Room 208 Camarillo, CA 93012 111 N. Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresseslisted in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, LLP's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondenceis placed for collection and mailing,it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. BY FEDEX: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or package provided by FedEx and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box ofFedEx or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by FedEx to receive documents. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 8, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. Vicki TrCalderhead 3552015.1 26244-332 1