Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV09936, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09936    Hearing Date: March 14, 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 Janine Paredes and Jacob Alexander Paredes (“Plaintiffs”) move to seal Jacob Paredes’s Minor’s Compromise Petition (MC-350), and the corresponding Order (MC-351) and proof of deposit. 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.)

In Hinshaw v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 242, the court found that private, non-governmental parties have a privacy interest in maintaining confidentiality of settlement agreements that contain personal financial information. The court has also found that the public at large may have an interest in knowing settlement terms when a public entity settles a lawsuit, especially when it involves how public funds are spent. (See Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367, 376.) 

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 Mark Peacock who asserts that Jacob Paredes has a right to privacy regarding financial information and that he could become subject to solicitations from unscrupulous individuals if the petition is not sealed. (Peacock Decl. ¶ 5-6.) The Court notes the settlement is between private parties, Plaintiffs and Defendant Siesta Inn. (Id. ¶ 3.) The Court finds that there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records, the overriding interest supports sealing the records, and a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed.

The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored because this motion only concerns the petition for a minor’s compromise and documents supporting the petition. Because Plaintiffs must file minor’s compromise petitions to proceed with settlement, there are no less restrictive means available.   

Plaintiffs have filed redacted versions of the documents to be sealed and lodged unredacted copies with the Court.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The following documents in their unredacted form are to be filed under seal: (1) Jacob Paredes’s Minor’s Compromise Petition, (2) Order Approving Minor’s Compromise, and (3) Proof of Deposit.

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