Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Pacific Western Bank v. Lotus Innovations Fund II L.P., Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Christian Mack moves to seal the records of this action. 

This action was dismissed with prejudice on April 11, 2019.  Generally, when a plaintiff files a voluntary dismissal of an action, “‘the court is without jurisdiction to act further [citations], and any subsequent orders of the court are simply void. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]”  (Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89.)  Defendant has not demonstrated that this court still has jurisdiction to rule on this motion. 

To the extent this court may have jurisdiction to rule on the motion, the motion to seal is DENIED.

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”  (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)  “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”  (Id., rule 2.551(b)(1).)

“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.  (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1279-1280.) 

Defendant essentially seeks to seal the entire record of this case based on generalized assertions that its contents prejudice and harm his business.  He fails to set forth why all of the documents and the docket itself contains proprietary and confidential information in order to show an overriding interest to overcome the public right to access. 

Furthermore, the motion is also grossly overbroad.  Defendant asserts that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored because he does not seek to seal any information that resulted in a trial or a final judgment.  However, he fails to cite any authority to show that pre-trial settlement of a case supports the sealing of the entire matter. 

Lastly, the documents and docket has been part of the public record for over three years.  Defendant did not seek to seal the records when the matter settled.  Any proprietary or confidential nature of the documents have not changed in the three intervening years and sealing the records now would not necessarily change anything.

Clerk to give notice of ruling.