Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV38407, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38407 Hearing Date: April 29, 2025 Dept: 76
This is a revival action pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 340.1, alleging Plaintiff was sexually abused and assaulted by Defendants’ employee while Plaintiff was a student at school.
Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District moves for summary judgment as to the Second Amended Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING
The hearing on Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to May 23, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
Defendant’s application to seal Exhibit C is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 2.551(b)(6), Defendant is notify the Court within 10 days of this order whether the unredacted Exhibit C is to be filed unsealed. If Defendant does not so notify the Court within 10 days of this order, then Exhibit C shall be returned to Defendant, and all references to Exhibit C in Defendant’s motion shall be stricken and disregarded when the Court proceeds to address the motion for summary judgment on the merits at the continued hearing.
ANALYSIS
Application To Seal Documents
Defendant presented an application to seal its Exhibit C, which is the personnel file of former LAUSD employee Carlos David Pinto. Defendant claims that this file would fall within the Court’s protective order and should remain confidential as a private personnel file of a former employee.
On January 31, 2024, the Court entered a protective order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation re: confidential designation of documents or testimony. However, that protective order expressly provides at ¶ 17 as follows:
17. Where any Confidential Materials or Information derived from Confidential Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules. With respect to discovery motions or any other motions or proceedings not governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the Parties shall follow California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 regardless.
(January 31, 2024 Stipulated Order, ¶ 17 [bold emphasis added].)
In connection with the application to seal, Defendant did not comply with the sealing rules set forth in Rule 2.550 and 2.551 in any respect. Defendant does not cite any statute or case law which requires that Pinto’s personnel records be kept confidential by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(a)(2).) As such, Defendant was required to comply with the sealing rules.
A motion seeking an order sealing the record must be accompanied by “a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(b)(1)(bold emphasis and underlining added). Per Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d), a court may order that a record be filed under seal “only if it expressly finds facts that establish” all of the following:
(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.
(Bold emphasis added.)
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(e)
provides:
(1) An
order sealing the record must:
(A) Specifically state the facts that support
the findings;
(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.
“A request to seal a document must be filed publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration or affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” (In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)
“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c)(bold emphasis and underlining added)). “The trial court cannot rely solely on an agreement or stipulation of the parties as the basis for permitting records to be filed under seal. (Citations omitted.)” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)
The fact that Defendant characterizes the information contained in the Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 to Plaintiffs’ Opposition does not, by itself, require a sealing order. Indeed, the Stipulated Protective Order itself specifies at ¶ 16 in pertinent part: “Where any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules.”
Here, moving party has not demonstrated by way of a factual declaration or affidavit that all of the CRC Rule 2.550(d) requirements for sealing have been met.
The Court itself recognized the foregoing problem and instructed defense counsel to address the issue of sealing materials in compliance with the California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551. (February 18, 2025 Minute Order.) The Court continued the hearing on this summary judgment motion to April 18, 2025 to allow Defendant to comply with the sealing rules. The Court then further continued the hearing until this date. (April 8, 2025 minute order.)
However, Defendant has not yet filed any briefs to comply with the sealing rules set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551. As such, the application to seal Exhibit C is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 2.551(b)(6), Defendant is notify the Court within 10 days of this order whether the unredacted Exhibit C is to be filed unsealed. If Defendant does not so notify the Court within 10 days of this order, then Exhibit C shall be returned to Defendant, and all references to Exhibit C in Defendant’s motion shall be stricken and disregarded when the Court proceeds to address the motion for summary judgment on the merits at the continued hearing.
Accordingly, the hearing on the
motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to May 23, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.