Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC611486, Date: 2023-06-20 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: BC611486    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda sues Defendants Emmanuel Pacquiao, Frederick Roach, Keith M. Davidson, Paramount Global (Paramount; formerly CBS Corporation), Showtime Networks, Inc. (Showtime) (with Paramount, the Showtime Defendants), and Does 1-25 pursuant to a January 10, 2024 Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that alleges claims of (1) Breach of Oral Contract, (2) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract, (3) Common Counts for Labor, Work, and Services, (4) Quantum Meruit, (5) Fraud in the Inducement, (6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation, (7) Unjust Enrichment, (8) Attempted Extortion; and (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Motion Before the Court

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff Rueda opposed joinders by the Showtime Defendants and Defendant Roach to a January 5, 2021 motion to compel deposition by Defendant Davidson.

In support of his opposition, Plaintiff Rueda lodged with the Court an exhibit containing “a redacted version of the true and correct copy of [the] July 6, 2023 letter from Dr. Priyam V. Tripathi, MD, MPH,” which contains non-public information relating to Plaintiff’s medical condition.

That same day, Plaintiff Rueda filed a motion to seal Dr. Tripathi’s letter.

The motion is not opposed by any Defendant and is now before the Court.

Motion to Seal

Order Sealing Record: GRANTED.

I.

Motion to Seal – Moving Papers

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).)

Here, the motion and its memo were filed with the Court on November 28, 2023.

II.

Motion to Seal – Service

A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already possesses copies of the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(2).)

Here, the motion to seal attaches a proof of service showing service on counsel for the Showtime Defendants, Defendant Roach, Defendant Davidson, and Defendant Pacquiao. (Mot., POS.)

III.

Motion to Seal – Lodging

Unless good cause exists, a record to be filed under seal must be put in an envelope or other appropriate container labeled ‘CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL,’ have a cover sheet affixed thereto with an appropriate caption page stating the envelope contains a motion to file a record under seal and be lodged in the sealed envelope with the Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subds. (b)(4), (d)(2), (d)(4).)

Here, Dr. Tripathi’s letter has been lodged with the Court. (11/28/23 Opp’n to Joinders, Notice of Lodging.)

IV.

Motion to Seal – Redacted and Unredacted Versions

If necessary to prevent disclosure, any motion to seal and any supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and lodged in a complete, unredacted version conditionally under seal.¿ The cover of the redacted version must identify it as “Public-Redacts materials from conditionally sealed record” while the cover of the unredacted version must identify it as “May Not Be Examined Without Court Order-Contains material from conditionally sealed record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(5).)

Here, Plaintiff Rueda has filed in the public record a redacted version of Dr. Tripathi’s letter with the proper identification language and has lodged with the Court an unredacted copy of the same. (11/28/23 Opp’n to Joinders, Notice of Lodging; 11/28/23 Opp’n to Joinders, Khan Decl., Ex. B.)

V.

Motion to Seal – Findings

“The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596 (Savaglio), citing NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209, fn. 25].) Therefore, before a trial court orders a record sealed, it must hold a hearing and make express findings set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d): (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the 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; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Savaglio, supra, at p. 596; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).) A court’s order allowing documents to be filed under seal must contain express factual findings establishing these five factors. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

Here, the Court finds that there is a clear overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record: the prevention of disclosure of a person’s medical history, which is subject to the right to privacy. (See Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850-851 [informational privacy in medical information; autonomy privacy in obtaining treatment]; Medical Bd. of Cal. v. Chiarottino (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 623, 631, fn. 5. [informational privacy in patient prescription records].) Moreover, the Court notes that the information to be sealed implicates the protective order executed on January 18, 2019.

The Court also finds that the overriding interests support sealing the record because failure to do so will lead to a disclosure of Plaintiff Rueda’s medical history. Plaintiff Rueda’s right to privacy in that medical information will clearly be prejudiced if the information in Dr. Tripathi’s letter is filed in the public record, particularly where a protective order exists between the parties. A redaction of the entire letter is narrowly tailored as to preserve Plaintiff’s right to privacy in the information contained therein. Moreover, no less restrictive means exist because the Court has determined that the right to privacy is triggered by the entirety of Dr. Tripathi’s letter, thus necessitating a wholesale redaction of this document.

The motion is also unopposed.

Plaintiff’s motion is thus GRANTED. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

The Court signs the proposed order filed concurrently with this motion.

Moving party to provide notice.