Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, Case 37-2022-00050111-CU-OE-CTL 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00050111-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 22, 2024

02/23/2024 10:30:00 AM C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00050111-CU-OE-CTL GAINES VS SAN DIEGO WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 02/08/2024

Defendant Peter Callstrom's Motion to File Documents Under Seal is DENIED.

Defendant Peter Callstrom's Motion to Uphold Highly Confidential Designation is DENIED.

Plaintiff Tabatha Gaines' Opposition Motion to Seal is DENIED.

Defendant Peter Callstrom's Reply 'Motion to Seal Motion to Uphold Highly Confidential Designation' is DENIED.

Defendant's Motion to Seal Court records are presumed open. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule (CRC) 2.550(c).) CRC 2.550 authorizes the court to seal records only if it expressly finds: (1) an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (3) a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) there is no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest.

(CRC 2.550(d).) A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. (CRC 2.551(a).) Defendant asks the Court to file under seal documents in support of his Motion to Uphold Highly Confidential Designation pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order under CRC 2.550 and 2.551 and the Court's Order dated July 31, 2023. However, in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.

(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, the court concluded 'more than a mere agreement of the parties to seal documents filed in a public courtroom' is needed. (Universal, supra, at p. 1281; see also, CRC 2.551(a) ['The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.']) Defendant has not otherwise met his burden.

First, the unredacted versions of the documents on file, including the documents proposed to be sealed, were not provided to the Court. (CRC 2.551(b)(4).) The Court's calendar clerk reached out to Defendant's counsel for a copy of the unredacted moving documents and despite providing the unredacted versions of the companion Motion to Uphold Highly Confidential Designation (HCD motion), none were provided as to the Motion to Seal.

Notwithstanding, the Court reviewed the records conditionally lodged under seal in the HCD motion, Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3058357 48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GAINES VS SAN DIEGO WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP 37-2022-00050111-CU-OE-CTL including what the parties refer to as the Sensitive Emails (CALLSTROM0000199-201). Defendant has not identified any overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records. NBC Subsidiary listed examples of various interests that courts have identified as potentially constituting an overriding interest to justify closure of courtroom proceedings and by inference sealing otherwise open court documents. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46).) None of those examples apply, nor are argued, here. At most, Defendant maintains disclosure will 'gratuitously damage Callstrom's reputation causing him financial harm.' This is speculative and lacks specificity. (See, In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1576 [sealing order requires more than the 'rote recitation of the listed criteria' and 'particular facts [are] necessary to satisfy the constitutional standards for sealing court orders']; In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 301 [A declaration supporting a motion to seal should be specific, not conclusory, as to the facts supporting the overriding interest].) Moreover, the Sensitive Emails do not seemingly impact any of the litigants' right to a fair trial, contain privileged information, concern personally identifying information like financial or medical records and do not implicate the privacy interests of third parties. (See, Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial (March 2022 Update) § 2.145.) Defendant also did not address the other findings the Court is required to make regarding how this overriding interest overcomes the right of public access to the records and whether a substantial probability exists that the interest will be prejudiced absent a sealing order. (CRC 2.550(d)(1)-(3).) The Court is not convinced the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and a sealing order is the least restrictive means of preserving the parties privacy. (CRC 2.550(d)(4)-(5).) At most, Callstrom points to the number of documents he produced in this litigation compared to the relative few he seeks to seal, but this does not address whether the sealing is narrowly tailored and the means to achieve the overriding interest.

Contrary to Callstrom's position, the Sensitive Emails appear not only relevant to this litigation, but also, to the proposed second amended complaint Plaintiff seeks to file.

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Defendant's Motion to Uphold Highly Confidential Designation Defendant's reply objections to Plaintiff's Evidence are overruled.

On July 31, 2023, the Court approved the parties' 'Stipulation and Protective Order – Confidential and Highly Confidential Designations' (the SPO). (ROA 41.) It defines 'Highly Confidential' to mean 'any information which belongs to a Designating Party who believes in good faith that the Disclosure of such information to another Party or non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means.' (SPO, at ¶1(e) (emphasis added).) The SPO provides that upon a party's objection, the Designating Party has 30 days to either agree in writing to de-designate or file a motion with the Court seeking to uphold the designation. (See, SPO, ¶ 6.) 'The Designating Party shall have the burden on any Designation Motion of establishing the applicability of its 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential' designation.' (Ibid.) Defendant his not met his burden the Sensitive Emails are 'Highly Confidential' as defined by the SPO.

The standard articulated in the SPO requires two parts: a 'substantial' risk of 'serious' financial or other injury; and (ii) that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means. Defendant does not address the latter.

As to the former, Defendant does not articulate what the substantial risk of serious financial or other injury is or could be other than to describe his difficulties in obtaining employment and other hearsay regarding feedback from prospective employers. Rather, based on what Plaintiff provided, Defendant wanted to use the Sensitive Emails to prove he did not commit any wrongdoing, but now wants to shield Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3058357 48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GAINES VS SAN DIEGO WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP 37-2022-00050111-CU-OE-CTL them from review, claiming they harm him. The positions he has taken are inconsistent. Under the parties' definition of 'Highly Confidential,' Defendant has not met his burden it applies to the Sensitive Emails. The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Plaintiff filed an opposition motion to seal her opposition documents. As the Court decided not to seal the records, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

Defendant's Reply Motions to Seal Defendant filed a series of documents titled in part, 'Motion to Seal Motion to Uphold Highly Confidential Designation Under Seal.' To the extent Defendant asks the reply briefing on the HCD motion be sealed, the motion is also DENIED.

The Court notes for the record Defendant's reply brief on the HCD motion includes a notation that it 'contains material from conditionally sealed record,' and the brief was not delivered to the Court in a sealed envelope.

Concluding Orders The parties are ordered to file unredacted versions of their respective briefings in order to preserve the Court's record by March 1, 2024.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendant is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling by February 27, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3058357 48