Judge: Carolyn B. Kuhl, Case: 24STCV11347, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11347    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: 12

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Acevedo v. Salt & Straw, LLC, et al.

24STCV11347

Dept. 12 SSC

Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl

Date of Hearing: December 3, 2024

Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to File Confidential Settlement Agreement and Declaration of Evan J. Smith Under Seal

Tentative Ruling:  The Motion is denied. 

Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2024, alleging causes of action on behalf of “all mobility impaired/wheelchair-bound persons located in California who have patronized Salt & Straw ice cream shops identified [in the Complaint] who have been, or who were, prior to the filing of the Complaint, denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any of the Salt & Straw ice cream shops identified [in the Complaint] … .”  (Compl., ¶ 24.) 

        On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff informed the court that the parties had reached an individual settlement of Plaintiff’s claims.  (Notice of Settlement, July 26, 2024.)  On October 3, 2024, the parties sought dismissal of this action, including dismissal of the class claims.  (See Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Dismiss Action, Oct. 3, 2024.)  In support of their request for dismissal, the parties lodged the settlement agreement and a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel, Evan J. Smith.  The declaration by Evan J. Smith (Smith Declaration) was filed in the record in redacted form.

        Defendants now move to seal both the settlement agreement in its entirety and the redacted portions of the Smith Declaration. 

“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, subd. (d).)  “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, (b)(1).)  “The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).) 

“[A] contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of [California Rules of Court,] rule [2.550].”  (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283 (Universal City).)  However, the existence of an overriding interest in preventing public disclosure is only the beginning of the inquiry required by California Rule of Court 2.550 before a record may be sealed.  A party seeking to have a record sealed must offer facts to establish that the “overriding interest supports sealing the record,” and that “[a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(2)-(3).)  Or, as the court in Universal City put it, the party moving to seal the documents must make a “specific showing of serious injury” resulting from the public filing of the confidential documents.  (Universal City, at p. 1282.)   

The settlement and the Smith Declaration have been filed conditionally under seal in connection with the request for dismissal.  The decision by this court as to whether to dismiss the class claims depends in part on the nature of any consideration received by Plaintiff under the settlement agreement.  In other words, a plaintiff’s compensation received in order to dismiss a putative class action is not the strictly personal affair of that plaintiff.  Even though parties ordinarily have an interest in enforcing a contractual obligation not to disclose settlement terms (see Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241 disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531), when an individual settlement is made by a plaintiff who originally brought a class action, the public has an interest in ensuring that the plaintiff is not taking monies that fairly belong to the class.  The court’s decision on that issue ordinarily should be subject to public scrutiny.  An important judicial function would be hidden from the public should the amount of an individual settlement be concealed whenever a plaintiff seeks permission to dismiss class claims.  Therefore, the ordinary interest of parties in settling a matter confidentially may be overcome by the public interest when the settlement is a pre-requisite to dismissal of class claims.  

With these principles in mind, the court turns to the declaration of Alana C. Srour (Srour), which is the only declaration submitted in support of Defendants’ sealing request.  The declaration consists of just four paragraphs.  Srour explains that she is counsel of record for Defendants in this action.  (Srour Decl., ¶ 1.)  Srour claims that the settlement agreement reached in this action “contains a confidentiality provision requiring Plaintiff to keep the amount of the settlement, the terms and contents of the settlement, and all matters relating to the settlement confidential.”  (Srour Decl., ¶ 2.)  Srour opines that “[t]here is substantial risk of prejudice to Defendant’s legitimate business interests should the terms of the [settlement agreement] be released or disclosed.”  (Srour Decl., ¶ 3.)  Srour then claims that “disclosure of the [settlement agreement] may result in frivolous claims filed against Defendants.”  (Srour Decl., ¶ 3.)

Srour’s declaration does not contain sufficient facts to support the requested sealing order.  Instead, Srour merely offers the unsupported conclusion that the filing of the settlement in the public record of this action will somehow cause third parties to file “frivolous” actions against Defendant.  Srour’s declaration is thus very far from providing factual support for the contention that the filing of the settlement in the public record of this litigation might actually prejudice the parties.  In other words, the conclusions provided in the four-paragraph declaration do not provide this court with a “specific showing of serious injury.”  Given the lack of a specific showing of serious injury, the Motion must be denied.