Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV02795, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02795    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 14

 

Tanner v. County of Los Angeles

 

Case Background

 

Plaintiff alleges that she was stalked by an employee of the LA County Sheriff’s office. This culminated in a home invasion where she fired multiple gunshots at the intruder. That incident resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest by the Sheriff’s Department (for negligent discharge of a firearm) and a resulting report to Plaintiff’s employer, the LA County Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”). After receiving the report, DCFS compelled Plaintiff to undergo a fitness evaluation, placed her on involuntary disability leave, attempted to fire her, ultimately demoted her, then finally returned her to her original position three years later.

 

            On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination, (2) FEHA Retaliation, (3) Failure to Accommodate, (4) Failure to Engage, (5) Failure to Prevent, (6) Declaratory Relief, and (7) Violation of Labor Code § 230 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”) and DOES 1-100.

 

On March 14, 2022, Defendant County filed its Answer.

 

            Jury Trial is currently set for July 22, 2024.

 

Instant Motion

 

Defendant County now moves this court for an order sealing (a) Exhibit Nos. 11, 17, 22, submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment filed on January 23, 2024, and (b) the Declaration of John Stalberg submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment filed on January 23, 2024.

 

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 GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part, as follows.

 

Exhibit 11 will be partially sealed. Plaintiff’s Social Security number will be sealed. The sections headed “Social History,” “Employment History,” “Medical History,” “Kaiser Medical Records,” “Drug History,” and “Financial and Criminal History” will be sealed. The sections headed “Employee’s Current Work Status,” “Purpose of this Reevaluation and Referral Issues,” “Clinical Observation and Mental Status,” “Evaluation Procedures,” “Employment History with DCFS,” “County Equity of Policy Filings,” “Mental Health History,” “Kaiser Psychiatry Service,” “Circumstances Leading to FFDE Referral,” “Test Results,” “Diagnostic Impressions,” “Diagnosis,” and “Conclusions and Recommendations” will not be sealed.

 

Exhibit 17 will be partially sealed. Of the attached Assessment by Ana L. Nogales Sections I-II, IV, and IX will be sealed. Sections III, V-VIII, and X-XII will not be sealed. Of the attached letter by Gordon A. St. Mary, the first, sixth, seventh, and eighth paragraphs will be sealed. The remainder will not be sealed.

           

            Exhibit 22 will be partially sealed. Plaintiff’s Social Security number will be sealed. The first, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of the section headed “Employment History” will be sealed. The second and third paragraphs of the section headed “Diagnostic Impressions” will be sealed. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth paragraphs of the section headed “Conclusions and Recommendations” will be sealed. The sections headed “Family Background,” “Relationship History,” “Educational History,” “Military History,” “Driving Record,” “Legal Record,” “Financial History,” “Medical History,” “Substance Use,” “Kaiser Medical Records, will be sealed. No other portions will be sealed.

 

            The Declaration of John Stalberg will be partially sealed. Paragraphs 6-7 will be sealed. No other portions will be sealed.

 

No other records relating to this case are sealed. No persons other than the court and department staff are entitled to inspect the sealed records, absent further order of court.

 

Discussion

 

            As part of its motion for summary judgment, Defendant County submitted (1) a series of records showing psychiatric evaluations of Plaintiff and (2) a declaration from an expert who had reviewed some of Plaintiff’s records. This is an employment discrimination case in which Plaintiff claims that Defendant County tried to fire her because of their perception that she was disabled. Defendant County’s response is that Plaintiff had real psychiatric issues which prevented her from performing in a satisfactory manner.

 

            The constitutional right to privacy is certainly an interest that might overcome the right of public access in the right circumstances. See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222 fn.46. However, when a party brings a lawsuit which places their medical condition at issue, they may not reasonably expect to keep that medical condition private. See John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199. Plaintiff has brought a disability discrimination claim. That places her disability, and/or Defendant’s perception of that disability, directly in issue. The pieces of evidence Defendant seeks to seal are central to their motion for summary judgment. The public cannot reasonably evaluate the operations of this court without seeing some portion of this evidence.

 

            However, these records are so broadly comprehensive that they contain certain details (things like where Plaintiff worked as a teenager, whether or not she served in the military, and the state of her driving record) which are only tangentially related to this case. Items like that may be of some peripheral relevance to an examining expert, but they do not form the meat of the legal and factual issues here. They’re not even on the same plate. There is no need for those private facts to make their way into the public record at this time.

 

            Therefore, the court has gone through each document and identified each portion which contains information which is both private and not directly related to this dispute. Those portions are listed above. Counsel will need to speak with the clerk to determine the best logistical manner to clean up the record, including the filing of the documents with only the redactions directed by the court.