Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 21STCV41402, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41402    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 11

Sagona (21STCV41402)

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Seal

Date:                           1/23/24

Time:                          10:00 am

Moving Party:           Kelly Sagona and Ronaldo Sanchez (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

Opposing Party:        None

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion to seal is granted as to (1) the settlement amounts, and (2) private contact and/or identification information, if any, in the settlement agreements.

The motion to seal is denied as to the remaining information in the settlement agreements.

Plaintiff should submit redacted versions for the public file.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage-and-hour putative class action.

Recently, the parties reached settlements.  In part, the settlements require Plaintiffs’ individual claims to be dismissed with prejudice and the class claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Here, Plaintiffs move to seal the settlement agreements.

LAW

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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) “These findings embody constitutional requirements for a request to seal court records, protecting the First Amendment right of public access to civil trials.  (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2023 Update) ¶ 9:418, emphasis in original.) 

The parties’ agreement to seal documents is not enough to support a motion to seal.  (Id. at ¶ 9:417.1 [“Parties sometimes operate under an informal arrangement pursuant to which documents are ‘deemed filed under seal’ unless an objection is made.  Such an arrangement ‘is entirely inconsistent with the mandatory requirements of rules 2.550 and 2.551 and the constitutional values informing those requirements.’”].)

“Only the specific words of documents that constitute the sensitive material should be sealed; generally, it is not permissible to seal the entire document.”  (Id. at ¶ 9:418.5.)

Case law recognizes that confidential settlement agreements “may include information that may warrant sealing[.]”  (Id. at ¶¶ 9:418.5, 9:418.8; see also, e.g., Universal City Studio, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4^th 1273.) 

But “[a] settlement agreement . . . does not qualify for sealing after all references to financial and other confidential data have been redacted.”  (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 9:418.20.)

DISCUSSION

Given these rules, the Court grants the motion to seal in part because:

* it is unopposed;

* an overriding interest exists in keeping the settlement amounts and private contact and/or identification information, if any, confidential;

* the overriding interest supports sealing the settlement amounts and private contact and/or identification information;

* there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the motion is denied; and

* the sealing is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to protect the overriding interest.

The remaining information in the settlement agreements – i.e., all information except the settlement amounts and private contact and/or identification information – is nonconfidential and should not be sealed.  This portion of the motion to seal is denied.

Plaintiffs should submit redacted versions for the public file that comply with these rulings.