Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC665489, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC665489    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 74

Timothy Youd v. Jason Freeland, et al.

Nominal Defendant Outlook Amusements, Inc. and Defendant Jason Freeland’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Supporting Documents.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a business dispute. 

            On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff Timothy Youd (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Jason Freeland (Defendant).

            On March 12, 2018, Nominal Defendant Outlook Amusements, Inc. (Nominal Defendant) filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

            In August 2019, the parties settled.

            On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement.

            On August 14, 2023, Nominal Defendant filed this motion to seal Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement and supporting documents.

            On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed a joinder to the motion to seal.

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 

            Nominal Defendant and Defendant aim to seal the entirety of Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the following supporting documents: the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiff’s arbitration demand, and Plaintiff’s declaration. But Nominal Defendant and Defendant have failed to identify in their motion the specific portions of these documents that, if available to the public, would compromise their alleged overriding interests. Consequently, Nominal Defendant and Defendant’s request is not sufficiently narrowly tailored for the purposes of their motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Nominal Defendant and Defendant’s motion to seal without prejudice.

Defendant shall give notice.

Timothy Youd v. Jason Freeland, et al.

Nominal Defendant Outlook Amusements, Inc. and Defendant Jason Freeland’s Motion to Seal Their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Supporting Documents.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a business dispute. 

            On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff Timothy Youd (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Jason Freeland.

            On March 12, 2018, Nominal Defendant Outlook Amusements, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

            In August 2019, the parties settled.

            On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement.

            On September 8, Nominal Defendant and Defendant (Defendants) filed their opposition to the motion to enforce the settlement. Defendants also filed this motion to seal their opposition and supporting 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 . . . “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 

            Defendants first seek to seal portions of their opposition that disclose the parties’ settlement terms. To that end, Defendants point to the parties’ settlement agreement, which contains a confidentiality provision. Under the provision, the parties agreed to keep the terms and conditions of the agreement confidential. (Motion, p. 4.) Defendants have an overriding interest in sealing references to confidential settlement terms. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) This interest will be prejudiced if the settlement terms are accessible to the public. Indeed, Defendants contend they would not have entered the settlement without the confidentiality provision. (Reply, p. 3:19-22.) To demonstrate they have narrowly tailored the proposed sealing, Defendants have filed their opposition and supporting declarations with proposed redactions and lodged on September 21, 2024, unredacted versions for the court’s review. The court finds the proposed redactions for the following portions of the opposition sufficiently narrowly tailored: page 2, lines 9-11; page 3, lines 1-7, 15-16, 17-24, 27-28; page 4, line 15; page 8, lines 17-19; page 9, lines 25-27; page 10, lines 4-6, 10-12, 22-25; page 11, lines 7-12, 13-20, 25-28. But the court does not find the proposed redaction on page 8, lines 2-7 sufficiently narrowly tailored. Last, the court finds the proposed redactions in the declarations of Aaron May and Michael A. Taitelman are sufficient. (May Decl., ¶¶ 5, 8; Taitelman Decl., ¶ 4.)

            Additionally, Defendants aim to seal other portions of their opposition. Defendants claim the opposition refers to their private financial information. This is a potential overriding interest that would be compromised if the information were available to the public. However, Defendants’ opposition and supporting documents do not mention Defendants’ financial affairs. The court further notes that Defendants wish to seal their descriptions of Plaintiff’s reform efforts. But Defendants have not cited an overriding interest that would support the sealing of these portions of their opposition.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants in part Defendants’ motion to seal their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and supporting documents.

Defendants shall give notice.
////////

Timothy Youd v. Jason Freeland, et al.

Nominal Defendant Outlook Amusements, Inc. and Defendant Jason Freeland’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement and Supporting Documents.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a business dispute. 

            On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff Timothy Youd (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Jason Freeland (Defendant).

            On March 12, 2018, Nominal Defendant Outlook Amusements, Inc. (Nominal Defendant) filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

            In August 2019, the parties settled.

            On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement.

            On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion to enforce the settlement.

            On October 31, 2023, Nominal Defendant and Defendant filed this motion to seal Plaintiff’s reply and supporting 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 . . . “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 

            Nominal Defendant and Defendant aim to seal the entirety of Plaintiff’s reply in support of his motion to enforce the settlement. Additionally, Nominal Defendant and Defendant seek to seal the entirety of the evidentiary objections Plaintiff filed in support of his reply. But Nominal Defendant and Defendant have failed to identify in their motion the specific portions of these documents that, if available to the public, would compromise their alleged overriding interests. Consequently, Nominal Defendant and Defendant’s request is not sufficiently narrowly tailored for the purposes of their motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Nominal Defendant and Defendant’s motion to seal without prejudice.

Defendant shall give notice.