Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV21273, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21273    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Transdev Services, Inc., Transdev North America, Inc., Timothy Grensavitch

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

Motion to File Under Seal

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff Richard Conell (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Transdev Services, Inc,, Transdev North America, Inc., and Timothy Grensavitch (Defendants).

            On August 8, 2022, the court entered a joint stipulation and protective order.

            February 9, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with exhibits that included documents subject to the protective order.

            On February 13, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to seal documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) Consequently, pleadings, motions, evidence, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; rather, a prior court order is necessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).)

            To grant such an order, the court must expressly find that . . . “on overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record, an overriding interest supports sealing the records, a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).) If the court fails to make the required findings, the order is deficient and cannot support sealing. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Sanctions may be imposed for overboard requests to seal. (Id. at p. 500.)

DISCUSSION 

            The court denies Defendants’ motion to seal without prejudice to renewing the motion upon a proper showing that permits the court to make the detailed findings that California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 requires. Defendant’s overly broad assertions deeming, for example, an entire exhibit “confidential” do not pass muster, nor, for that matter, do assertions of confidentiality about the circumstances of how a person’s “employment with Transdev Services ended” (Memo p. 3) – in an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case no less – to give just two passing examples for illustration.

The court shall discuss with counsel during the hearing the court’s expectations about complying with Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendants’ motion to seal without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 27, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court