Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV21273, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21273 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 74
Richard
Conell v. Transdev Services, Inc., et al.
Defendants’ Motion to File Under
Seal Documents Filed in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from an employment dispute.
On
June 8, 2021, Plaintiff Richard Conell (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against
Transdev Services, Inc., Transdev North America, Inc., and Timothy Grensavitch
(Defendants).
On
August 8, 2022, the court entered a joint stipulation and protective order.
On
February 9, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication.
On
April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary
judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.
On
December 11, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to seal documents Plaintiff
filed in support of his opposition.
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 . . . “an 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.)
DISCUSSION
Identities of Third-Party Employees
In their motion, Defendants first
seek to seal portions of documents that disclose the names of third-party
employees. The court finds that a legitimate interest supports this sealing. Courts
recognize a right to privacy in confidential personnel information. (El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987)
190 Cal.App.3d 342, 346, disapproved on other grounds in Williams v.
Superior Court (20170 3 Cal.5th 531.) This interest overrides that of
the public in access to the names of the third-party employees. This interest
will be compromised if the names remain unsealed and open to the public. The court further finds the sealing of the following
documents is sufficiently narrowly tailored.
Plaintiff’s
Separate Statement
The names of
Defendants’ former employees in Undisputed Material Fact Nos. 46-53, 112-119, 148-155, 284-291, 330-337, 379-386,
470-477, 523-530, 559-566,
595-602, 644-651, 691-698, 727-734, 776-783, 871-878, 967-974, 1063- 1070, 1159-1166,
1255-1262, 1351-1358, 1491-1498, 1587-1594.
The
names of Defendants’ former employees in Plaintiff’s Additional Material Fact Nos. 83-87.
Exhibit 2 –
Excerpts from Shanna Charles’ Deposition
The name of
a third-party employee on page 99, line 12.
Exhibit 4 – Excerpts from Richard
Conell’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on page 475, lines 10, 11, 15, and 17.
The names of third-party
employees on page 476, lines 12, 13, 14, and 15.
Exhibit 11 from
Plaintiff’s Compendium of Exhibits
The name of
a third-party employee listed throughout the email.
Exhibit 12 from Plaintiff’s
Compendium of Exhibits
The name of
a third-party employee listed throughout the email.
Exhibit 13 from Plaintiff’s
Compendium of Exhibits
The name of
a third-party employee listed throughout the email and notice.
Exhibit 14 from Plaintiff’s
Compendium of Exhibits
The name of
a third-party employee listed throughout the email and notice.
Exhibit 15 – Excerpts from
Charlene Nicholson’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
17, line 11; page 18, lines 6 and 7; page 19, line 19; page 38, line 12; page 40, line 11.
Exhibit 36 – Excerpts from
Vincent Verret’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
204, lines 21, 24, and 25; page 205, lines 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 24; page 206, lines 4, 10, and 18.
Exhibit 48 from Plaintiff’s
Compendium of Exhibits
The name of
a third-party employee listed throughout the emails.
Irrelevant
Information About Third-Party Employees
Defendants
seek to seal private information about third-party employees that Plaintiff
does not rely on in his opposition. To that end, Defendants note the
third-party employees’ privacy interest in documents concerning their
employment with Defendants. (El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior
Court, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 246.) This interest overrides that of
the public in access to the names of the third-party employees, especially because
Plaintiff does not rely on the information in his opposition. This interest
will be compromised if the names remain unsealed and open to the public. The
court further finds the sealing of the following documents is sufficiently
narrowly tailored.
Exhibit
1 – Excerpts from Kristopher Chavira’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
83, lines 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 25; page 84, lines 1, 4, 6, 7, 9,
10, 13, 15,
20, and 22; page 85, lines 14, 15, 22, and 23; page 86, lines 1, 6, 16, and 22; page
96, lines 15, 16, 20, and 23; page 97, lines 13, 14, 15, and 17; page 109, lines
4, 7, and 8; page 110, line 3; page 113, lines 2, 3, 20, and 24.
Exhibit 2 – Excerpts from Shanna
Charles’ Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
102, line 17; page 113, line 19.
Exhibit 4 – Excerpts from Richard
Conell’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
371, lines 17, 18, and 25; page 373, lines 10, 12, and 25; page 389, lines 10 and 20; page 418,
lines 12, 15, 16, and 18; page 439, lines 3, 7, and 11; page 477, lines 13, 14, 15,
and 19; page 478, line 6.
Exhibit 15 – Excerpts from
Charlene Nicholson’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
17, line 3; page 19, lines 3, 6, and 16; page 20, line 19; page 37, lines 7 and
11; page 88,
lines 17, 19, and 24; page 89, line 2.
Exhibit 24 – Excerpts from Michelle
De Alba’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
105, lines 13 and 16; page 106, lines 1, 2, 9, and 10.
Exhibit 34 – Excerpts from
Jazmain Mejia’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
93, lines 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 17, and 25; page 99, line 14; page 100, line 3;
page 110, lines 1 and 4; page 111, lines
9, 13, 14, and 19; page 112, lines 12 and 16; page
113, lines 6, 12, 15; page 128, line 10; page 132, lines 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, and
23; page
133, lines 12 and 13.
Exhibit 36 – Excerpts from
Vincent Verret’s Deposition
The names of
third-party employees on the following portions of the transcript: page
207, line 4.
CONCLUSION
The
court grants Defendants’ motion to seal.
Defendants
shall give notice.