Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 21STCV44276, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44276 Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: 11
Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Seal Re: Prost v. Herbivore Botanicals,
LLC et al, 21STCV44276
Date: 3/1/23
Time: 9:00
am
Moving Party: Herbivore Botanicals, LLC (“Herbivore”)
Opposing Party: None
Department: 11
Judge: David S. Cunningham III
________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE RULING
Herbivore’s motion
to seal is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Herbivore moves to seal portions of the Declarations of Bahar
Sodaify and Victoria McLaughlin in support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Request for
Dismissal of the Entire Action pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule
3.770. Specifically, Herbivore seeks to redact the total amount of the
settlement, the advertised name of the product, the payment schedule, the
account routing number, the account number, and banking institution.
The Court authorizes the redaction of the account routing number,
the payee accounting number, and the banking institution. All the remaining
information shall be filed in the public record without redaction for the
reasons listed below.
The motion is unopposed.
LAW
Rule
2.550(d) of the Rules of Court provides:
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).)
The
parties’ agreement to seal documents is not enough to support a motion to
seal. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac.
Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 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.)
However,
the California Constitution’s right of privacy extends to confidential
financial information. (See Overstock.com,
Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th
471, 503 [the right of privacy “embraces confidential financial information in
‘whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements,
or other account information’”].)
Absent voluntary disclosure by
the moving party, financial information ordinarily should be sealed because it
involves confidential matters relating to business operations and would
prejudice the moving party’s business interests if made available to the public. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285-86.)
DISCUSSION
Herbivore moves to seal specific terms of the "Confidential
Settlement Agreement" contained in the declarations of Bahar Sodaify and
Victoria McLaughlin. (See Motion , pp. 4-5.) The settlement agreement is
attached as Exhibit 1 to the Bahar Sodaify Declaration. The alleged
confidential information appears in ¶ ¶ 2, 3 and 4. The information consists primarily of the consideration
paid to plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys fees. Herbivore argues generally, and without any
further explanation, that the advertised terms and paid consideration are
confidential proprietary information.
Plaintiff’s Monetary Compensation
“[A] contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an
overriding interest within the meaning of [California Rules of Court,] rule
[2.550].” (Universal City Studios,
Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) However, the existence of an overriding
interest in preventing public disclosure is only the beginning of the inquiry
required by California Rule of Court 2.550 before a record may be sealed. A party seeking to have a record sealed must
offer facts to establish that the “overriding interest supports sealing the
record,” and that “[a] substantial probability exists that the overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (California Rules of
Court, rule 2.550(d)(2)-(3).) As noted
above, the moving parties have failed to provide any admissible evidence
concerning the asserted potential injury to Defendant should the settlement
amount and the former advertised names be disclosed.
Moreover, there is no evidence presented by the parties to
demonstrate that Plaintiff will suffer any prejudice if the public record
reflects the amount she has received under the settlement. Plaintiff’s claims and the settlement thereof
do not concern private matters such as, for example, Plaintiff’s personal
income, private wealth, or health information.
Importantly, the Court also must consider whether parties’ mutual
agreement not to disclose settlement terms can constitute “an overriding
interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record” when the
court is required to consider the terms of the settlement before dismissing a
class action. The instant Motion is
filed in conjunction with a request for dismissal of this class action pursuant
to California Rules of Court, rule 3.770. (See Joint Further Status Conference
Statement, Feb. 22, 2023, at p. 2.)
“A dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause
of action in a class action, requires court approval. … Requests for dismissal
must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts on which the party
relies. The declaration must clearly state whether consideration, direct or
indirect, is being given for the dismissal and must describe the consideration
in detail.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.770, subd. (a), emphasis added.) “This
rule applies even before a class is certified, and assures that plaintiff is
not deriving some personal benefit from dismissal that belongs to the
class.” (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro.
Before Trial (The Rutter Group) Ch. 11-A ¶ 11:14, emphasis added.) Because this is a putative class action, the
decision by this court of whether to grant dismissal thus depends in large part
on the nature of any consideration received by Plaintiff in the settlement. In other words, a plaintiff’s compensation
received in exchange for dismissal of a putative class action is not the
strictly personal affair of that plaintiff or defendant.
Even though parties ordinarily have an overriding interest in
enforcing a contractual obligation not to disclose settlement terms, when an
individual settlement is made by a plaintiff who originally brought a class
action, the public has an interest in ensuring that the plaintiff is not taking
monies that fairly belong to the class.
The court’s decision on that issue should be subject to public scrutiny. An important judicial function would be
hidden from the public should the amount of an individual settlement be
concealed when the plaintiff seeks permission to dismiss class claims. Therefore, the ordinary interest of parties
in settling a matter confidentially is overcome by the public interest when the
settlement is a pre-requisite to dismissal of class claims.
The Court finds that the motion to seal should be granted in part and
denied in part. The Court authorizes the redaction of the account routing number,
the payee accounting number, and the banking institution. All the remaining
information shall be filed in the public record without redaction.