Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: BC693139, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC693139    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, CIVIL COVER SHEET,

AND CIVIL COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

Date:               9/1/22 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Daniel Rudyak v. Ankur Jain et al. (BC693139)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ankur Jain’s Motion to Sea Portions of the Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, and Civil Cover Sheet Addendum is DENIED.

The Court finds that defendant’s desire to prevent public dissemination of purportedly false allegations asserted against him in this action does not override the right of public access to court records. “[T]he public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system, and that interest strongly supports a general right of access in ordinary civil cases.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1210.) California recognizes a common law and First Amendment right of access to court records. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483; see also Cal. Rule of Court 2.550(c) [court records presumed to be open].)

The Court of Appeal in People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009 observed that “[w]hile commercial harm or embarrassment of a party does not alone justify sealing the entire record of a case [citation], it is appropriate to seal certain records when those particular records contain highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing personal information about individuals. [Citation].”) (Jackson, 128 Cal.App.4th at 1024.) Here, the information defendant seeks to shield from the public eye falls in the former category and not the latter. The Court recognizes the allegations previously at issue in this suit could cause embarrassment and potentially lead to commercial harm to moving defendant, but the records in this case are not of the sort that contain actual highly sensitive and personally embarrassing information. To the contrary, the records and files in this case reflect that plaintiff made certain allegations against moving defendant. Plaintiff later dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice, albeit without explanation.

Defendant maintains that plaintiff told him the Complaint was filed based on misinformation and that plaintiff agreed the allegations in the Complaint have no basis. (Jain Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant also declares that plaintiff confirmed to him that he does not oppose the motion. (Jain Reply Decl. ¶ 2.) Jain’s declarations to this effect are now part of the public record for this case. The public is entitled to draw its own conclusions from the records in this case (insofar as the public has any such interest in so doing). The public record for this case does not otherwise contain any highly sensitive or personal information that should be hidden from the public. Indeed, because defendant maintains the allegations of the Complaint are false, the records sought to be sealed cannot by definition constitute information that is personal or sensitive for purposes of denying public access.

The motion is DENIED.