Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV05934, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 22STCV05934 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 40
22STCV05934
Lesley F. Testan v. Susan Novell, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
This
is an action for breach of fiduciary duty arising from Defendants’ alleged
mismanagement of commercial real property. Plaintiff and some of the Defendants
entered into a settlement agreement on July 25, 2024. Settling parties agreed to keep the settlement
terms confidential. Sealing is required to protect Plaintiff’s confidential
financial information.
All
parties were served with the motion. No opposition has been filed.
Court records are presumed to be
open. (Cal. Rules of Court, 2.550 subd. (c).) The burden is on the
moving party to show compelling reasons for sealing records. (Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308,
317.) To support
an order to seal records, the court must find that “(1) there is an overriding
interest supporting sealing records; (2) there is a substantial probability
that the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; (3) the proposed sealing
is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no less
restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest." (McNair v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn. (2015)
234 Cal.App.4th 25, 29;
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 subd. (d).)
An agreement
not to disclose can constitute an “overriding interest” where there is specific
showing of serious injury. (McNair at 35–36 [“specificity is essential.
[Citation.] Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or
articulated reasoning, are insufficient.’”].)
Plaintiff has
identified a compelling interest to support redacting the settlement terms and
amounts, namely to protect Plaintiff’s financial privacy. (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Young (1970) 2 Cal.3d 259, 268 ["In any event we are
satisfied that the protection of one's personal financial affairs and those of
his (or her) spouse and children against compulsory public disclosure is an aspect
of the zone of privacy which is protected by the Fourth Amendment and which
also falls within that penumbra of constitutional rights into which the
government may not intrude absent a showing of compelling need and that the
intrusion is not overly broad’]. Publication
of a person’s assets “can be expected to bring unwanted solicitation from a
variety of salesmen and others, could well encourage harassment lawsuits or
demands of like nature, and could expose the public officer and family to
various criminal elements in our society." (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea at p. 270.)
Plaintiff has
shown a substantial probability that Plaintiff’s financial privacy interest
will suffer prejudice absent redaction of any references to the settlement
terms. The proposed order is narrowly tailored to serve Plaintiff’s privacy
interests, and there are no less restrictive means of protecting that interest.