Judge: Carolyn B. Kuhl, Case: 24STCV28067, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28067    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 12

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Licea v. Cinema Secrets Inc.

24STCV28067

Dept. 12 SSC

Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Dismissal and to Seal Portions of: (1) Declaration of Plaintiff Jose Licea in Support of His Request for Dismissal Pursuant to CRC 3.770; (2) Declaration of Scott J. Ferrell in Support of Request for Dismissal Pursuant to CRC 3.770

Tentative Ruling:  The Motion is denied as to the request to seal.  The clerk is directed to place all conditionally sealed documents in the public record.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on October 28, 2024.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website violates California’s Trap and Trace Law (Pen. Code, § 638.51).  Plaintiff and Defendant have reached an individual settlement.

Plaintiff moves both for dismissal of this action and for an order sealing the amount offered by Defendant pursuant to the individual settlement.  Plaintiff moves to seal the portions of two declarations stating the dollar amount paid by Defendant to Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s counsel.

“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 amount has been filed conditionally under seal in connection with the request for dismissal of the class claims.  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 a declaration by Ferrell submitted in support of the Motion, which is the only declaration submitted in support of the sealing request.  The declaration consists of two paragraphs.  The only justification for a sealing order that is offered by Ferrell is the fact that Plaintiff and Defendant, in agreeing to settle this matter, “also agreed that the amount paid by Defendant … to Plaintiff in this action would be kept confidential and would not be disclosed publicly.”  (Ferrell Decl., ¶ 2.)

Ferrell’s declaration does not contain sufficient facts to support the requested sealing order.  Ferrell’s declaration provides no factual support for the contention that the filing of the settlement amount in the public record of this litigation might actually prejudice the parties.  In other words, Ferrell’s short declaration does 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.