Judge David A. Hoffer, Case 30-2022-01285133 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01285133, Date: 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Dissolve Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order and Unseal Van Videos from Subject Incident filed by Plaintiffs Lui Jun Wu and Yanling He on 4/3/23 is DENIED.

Plaintiffs seek to unseal the videos from the van in this August 16, 2022 incident designated as “Confidential” pursuant to a Stipulation and Order entered into by the parties in February 2023. Plaintiff moves under CRC 2.551(h) to unseal the van videos in this case. That rule covers “Motion, application or petition to unseal records.” However, as defined by CRC 2.550, the present motion does not concern a sealed record at all. CRC 2.550(a)(1) provides that “Rules 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order” and CRC 2.550(a)(3) states “These rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” CRC 2.550(b)(1) defines “Record” as “Unless the context indicates otherwise, “record” means all or a portion of any document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court, by electronic means or otherwise.” The video is not filed or lodged with the court, and nor has the court ordered such a record sealed.

As explained in H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe,

“The discovery process, which is intended to be largely self-enforcing, would be greatly impeded if every document a party might produce was ipso facto open to public inspection. Records now freely disclosed under protective orders, often entered by stipulation, would require laborious collateral litigation to establish grounds for a sealing order. This would impose a substantial new burden on parties as well as on the courts, all in derogation of a process that is largely a modern invention and has never been conceived as open to the public. Moreover, since discovered materials are not court records until filed in court in connection with a motion or trial, it is unclear how a right of public access would be effectuated. It is therefore eminently sound to exempt discovered material from the presumptive right of public access”. (emphasis added) (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 879, 893.)

As such, Plaintiff has provided no authority for de-designating the video as confidential and the law is clear that discovered materials are not court records. There is a signed stipulation and agreement, executed by all parties, that specifically designates the video as confidential. Plaintiff has provided no authority for dissolving that agreement.

Moreover, even if the van videos were court records and the court performed the balancing urged by plaintiffs, the court would still not order the van videos released. On the defendants’ side, the court finds a significant chance that release of the video would lead to widespread viewing (on all forms of media) which would impact the jury pool. On the plaintiffs’ side, the court finds little, if any, benefit to a release at this time. Greater publicity for this case would not lead to a fairer trial.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.