Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC656364, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC656364    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Armando Japa Cabanlit (“Armando”), Patricia Nathali (“Nathali”), Ethan Cabanlit (“Ethan”), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Patricia Nathali, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Con-Way Freight Inc. (“Con-Way”), XPO Logistics Freight (“XPO Logistics”), and Jose Nunez Hernandez (“Hernandez”) for damages arising from a collision between a train and tractor trailer.  On June 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint alleging the crash occurred on or about September 1, 2015, when Hernandez, who was in the course and scope of his employment for Con-Way, failed to clear train tracks at an intersection controlled by railroad cross traffic lights.  The collision between the Union Pacific freight train and trailer caused the trailer to strike Plaintiff’s vehicle.  XPO Logistics acquired Con-Way after the accident.  

XPO Logistics and Hernandez then filed a cross-complaint against Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) alleging causes of action for equitable indemnity and contribution.  On April 4, 2022, XPO Logistics and Hernandez filed their operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint against Union Pacific, Mario Ramirez, and the City of Industry for equitable indemnity and contribution. 

On August 22, 2022, XPO Logistics and Hernandez (collectively, “XPO”) filed the instant motions to seal court records and for determination of good faith settlement.  In particular, XPO moves to seal the unredacted version of XPO’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.  The motion to seal is unopposed.  Union Pacific, however, opposes XPO’s motion for determination of good faith settlement, and XPO filed a reply. 

Given that portions of the motion for determination of good faith settlement filed with the Court have been redacted, the Court will first address the motion to seal.

2. Motion to Seal Court Records

California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1) states, “[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.”  CRC 2.550(d) makes clear that records cannot be sealed without appropriate findings.  It provides:

The Court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) 

A confidential settlement agreement may support sealing of court records.  In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283, the Court considered the issue of whether a confidential settlement agreement can be redacted at length.  The Court concluded, “We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).”  The Court went on, however, to note that the parties’ interests can typically be protected by redacting, as opposed to fully sealing, the subject documents. 

Here, XPO asserts that the only portions it proposes be redacted from the motion for determination of good faith settlement contain the amount of the settlement.  XPO contends that the confidentiality provision contained within Plaintiffs’ and XPO’s settlement agreement constitutes an overriding interest in sealing these records, and that the request is narrowly tailored.  Further, XPO contends that XPO Logistics and Hernandez will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed because it could subject them to public ridicule as it will be viewed as an admission of guilt.  Additionally, Defendants assert that disclosing the gross settlement amount and how it is to be apportioned between Plaintiffs, their medical providers and counsel would be in direct violation of the confidential agreement. 

The motion to seal is unopposed, and XPO’s proposed redactions are appropriate and narrowly tailored, as they are designed so that the specific amounts of the settlement remain confidential, but the remainder of the motion for determination of good faith settlement is permitted to remain in the public.  Furthermore, the settlement agreement is confidential in nature, and the proposed redactions will protect Plaintiffs’ privacy interests from disclosing the apportionment of the settlement amounts between Plaintiffs and others.  The proposed sealing cannot be made narrower, and XPO establishes good cause to seal the subject portions of the motion for determination of good faith settlement, as Plaintiffs’ and XPO’s settlement is confidential in nature. 

The Court grants the motion to seal the unredacted version of the motion for determination of good faith settlement.

3. Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

            XPO filed redacted copies of its motion for determination of good faith settlement and the declaration of Julie A. Luetkenhaus on August 22, 2022.  Thereafter, Union Pacific filed an opposition with the settlement amount redacted, as did XPO with its reply to Union Pacific’s opposition.  However, additional time is required to review the unredacted versions of those documents.  Thus, the motion for determination of good faith settlement will be continued briefly for the Court to review all UNREDACTED copies of the moving papers, opposition, and reply. 

The hearing on the motion for determination of good faith settlement is continued to September 27, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 31. 

XPO Logistics and Hernandez are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 14^th day of September 2022