Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV28566, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28566    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

              Plaintiffs Bora McCutcheon and Seth McCutcheon (“Plaintiffs”) move to seal portions of the court record containing their home address. On August 21, 2023, the case was called for trial, and the remaining defendant was dismissed from the operative second amended complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, no opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

To grant a motion to seal, the court must expressly find that: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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¿McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc.¿(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)  

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent “open court” policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-10.)  Consequently, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; filing under seal requires a court order.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe¿(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.) “Policy reasons to restrict access are ‘anything which tends to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to feel has a tendency to be injurious to the public or the public good.’ [Citation.]” (Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367, 373.)

A sealing order must be sought by means of a motion (or application) and accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, as well as evidence and testimony containing facts sufficient to justify the mandatory findings required to support a sealing order.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d) and 2.551(b).)  The proponent of the sealing order must also conditionally lodge the unredacted matter to be sealed with the court.  (Id., rule 2.551(b)(4).) 

DISCUSSION

             Here, Plaintiffs advance the declaration of Bora McCutcheon, who states that she is a Deputy City Attorney in the Criminal Division of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. Her husband, Plaintiff Seth McCutcheon is also a prosecutor in the Criminal Division of the California Department of Justice. McCutcheon states that because of their jobs, they prosecute defendants accused of violent crimes, with mental health and substance abuse problems. (McCutcheon Decl. ¶ 4–6.) As a result of their jobs and the potential for threats to their lives as law enforcement, Plaintiffs argue their home address should be sealed on Court documents to protect their safety.

The Court finds the factors set forth in California Rule of Court 2.550(d) have been established. The proposed sealing is also narrowly tailored since it only applies to parts of documents that contain Plaintiff’s home address. In their motion, Plaintiffs state the address is located in the original complaint. However, the proposed Order does not state the exact documents and pages to be sealed in the Court’s record. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e)(1)(B).) Plaintiffs must specify this information in an amended proposed order, conditionally lodge an unredacted version with the court, and file a redacted version.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court conditionally grants Plaintiffs’ motion to seal subject to filing of the proposed order.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of the Court’s order, and file proof of service of such.