Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, Case Number: 24STCV29890, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn B. Kuhl, Case: 24STCV29890, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV29890 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: 12

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Sanchez v. Dollar General Corporation

24STCV29890

Dept. 12 SSC

Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl

Date of Hearing: February 27, 2025

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application to File Portions of Declarations Under Seal [CRC § 2.551]

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is denied. The clerk is directed to transfer the sealed records to the public file.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on November 13, 2024, alleging that Defendant violated Penal Code section 638.51 by allowing a third-party social media company (TikTok) to collect the private information of consumers visiting Defendant’s website. Plaintiff sought to represent the following class: “All California citizens whose personal information was shared with TikTok or other third parties by Defendant without their effective and informed prior consent.” (Compl., ¶ 29, internal bolded typeface omitted.)

Plaintiff now seeks to dismiss the individual and class claims in this action in light of an individual settlement reached between the parties. In support of her request for dismissal, Plaintiff has submitted two declarations: (1) a declaration by Plaintiff; and (2) a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel, Scott J. Ferrell (Ferrell). Both declarations, which discuss the parties’ settlement, redact from the public record the amount to be paid by Defendant under the settlement. Plaintiff has lodged unredacted copies with the court.

Plaintiff now moves for an order to seal the portions of the two declarations that reveal the settlement amount. Plaintiff states: “The Declarations contain confidential information about the parties’ confidential settlement agreement that should not be publicly disclosed. Indeed, the settlement agreement is conditioned on the amount of the settlement remaining confidential, and overriding interests support the sealing of the record.” (Pl’s Mot. Seal, at p. 2.)

“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. Ferrell claims that the settlement agreement includes “[a] material provision … stat[ing] that the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the settlement amount, must remain confidential.” (Ferrell Decl. ISO Pl’s Mot. Seal, at p. 5.) Ferrell further states that “disclosure of information within the Settlement Agreement could impact settlement negotiations of other claims made against Defendant as disclosure could unfairly impair Defendant’s ability to properly, reasonably, and fairly defend and dispose of other lawsuits.” (Ferrell Decl. ISO Pl’s Mot. Seal, ¶ 7.)

Ferrell’s declaration does not contain sufficient facts to support the requested sealing order. Instead, Ferrell merely opines that the filing of the settlement amount in the public record of this action may somehow impair Defendant’s ability to defend itself in separate lawsuits or threatened lawsuits. No facts are provided by Ferrell explaining how an entity that is not his client will be seriously harmed by third parties merely because the settlement amount is filed in the public record in this action. Ferrell’s declaration is thus very far from providing 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, the conclusions provided in the short 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.