Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV01246, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01246 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 14
HRRP Garland LLC v. Local Initiative Health Authority
Case Background
This is a dispute about parking.
Plaintiff is Defendant’s landlord. Plaintiff takes the position that the lease
requires Defendant to pay a certain amount, per space, for parking each month.
Defendant takes the position that the amount is lower and seeks to recover
amounts that it believes were improperly paid.
On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff
(“Landlord”) filed their Complaint for Declaratory Relief against Defendants Local
Initiative Health Authority for Los Angeles dba LA Health Care Plan (“Tenant”)
and DOES 1-10.
On February 22, 2022, Tenant filed
its Answer.
On February 22, 2022, Tenant filed
its Cross-Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Implied
Covenant, (3) Money Had and Received, and (4)-(7) Declaratory Relief against
Cross-Defendant Landlord and ROES 1-10.
On March 18, 2022, Landlord filed
its Answer.
On December 7, 2023, Tenant
voluntarily dismissed the 5th and 6th causes of action
from the cross-complaint, without prejudice.
On February 26, 2024, Tenant
voluntarily dismissed the 7th cause of action from the
cross-complaint, without prejudice.
Bench Trial is currently scheduled
for June 3, 2024.
(1) Motion to
Seal (MIL No. 5)
Tenant now moves this court for an
order sealing (a) Pages 11:23-25 and 12:5-13 of the Memorandum submitted in
support of their Motion in Limine No. 5, (b) Exhibits 1-3, 6, and 7 of the
Declaration of Paul L. Seeley submitted in support of their Motion in Limine
No. 5, and (c) unidentified portions of deposition transcripts.
Governing Rules
California
Rules of Court Rule 2.550 provides in relevant part:
“(d)
Express factual findings required to seal records
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.
(e) Content and scope of the
order
(1) An order
sealing the record must:
(A) Specifically state the facts
that support the findings; and
(B) Direct the sealing of only
those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those
documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under
seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the
public file.
California
Rules of Court Rule 2.551 provides in relevant part:
“(a)
Court approval required
A record must not be filed under
seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed
under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.
…
(e) Order
(1) If the court grants an order
sealing a record and if the sealed record is in paper format, the clerk must
substitute on the envelope or container for the label required by (d)(2) a
label prominently stating “SEALED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON (DATE),”
and must replace the cover sheet required by (d)(3) with a filed-endorsed copy
of the court's order. If the sealed record is in electronic form, the
clerk must file the court's order, maintain the record ordered sealed
in a secure manner, and clearly identify the record as sealed by court order on
a specified date.
(2) The order must state
whether--in addition to the sealed records--the order itself, the register of
actions, any other court records, or any other records relating to the case are
to be sealed.
(3) The order must state whether
any person other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.
(4) Unless the sealing order
provides otherwise, it prohibits the parties from disclosing the contents of
any materials that have been sealed in anything that is subsequently publicly
filed.
Decision
The motion
is DENIED.
Discussion
The court
has reviewed the unredacted versions of the Memorandum and the Declaration of
Paul L. Seeley submitted in support of Tenant’s Motion in Limine No. 5. The
court does not see how the identified portions of the Memorandum contain any
proprietary or commercially sensitive information as asserted in the motion.
While the exhibits to the Declaration may contain information that is of
marginal commercial use, it is not sufficiently sensitive or proprietary to
override the public’s right of access to court records.
Although
the motion also refers to sealing deposition transcripts, it does not identify
what portions are to be sealed, or when they were filed. The court cannot grant
a sealing order without specific identification of what is to be sealed.
(2) Motion to
Seal (Opposition to MIL No. 3
Tenant now moves this court for an
order sealing (a) Pages 7:12-17 and 10:21-11:2 of the Opposition submitted in
response to Landlord’s Motion in Limine No. 3, (b) Exhibits 1-3 of the
Declaration of Paul L. Seeley submitted in support of that Opposition, and (c)
unidentified portions of deposition transcripts.
Decision
The motion
is DENIED.
Discussion
The court
has reviewed the unredacted versions of the Memorandum and the Declaration of
Paul L. Seeley submitted in support of Tenant’s Motion in Limine No. 5. The
court does not see how the identified portions of the Memorandum contain any
proprietary or commercially sensitive information as asserted in the motion.
While the exhibits to the Declaration may contain information that is of
marginal commercial use, it is not sufficiently sensitive or proprietary to
override the public’s right of access to court records.
Although
the motion also refers to sealing deposition transcripts, it does not identify
what portions are to be sealed, or when they were filed. The court cannot grant
a sealing order without specific identification of what is to be sealed.