Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 23STCV11223, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11223    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 11

Kern (23STCV11223)

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Seal the Settlement Agreement

Date:                           2/29/24

Time:                          11:00 am

Moving Party:           Steven Kern (“Plaintiff”)

Opposing Party:        None

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to seal the settlement agreement is granted in part as to:

* the settlement amount; and

* private contact and/or identification information, if any.

The motion is denied as to all information except the settlement amount and private contact and/or identification information.

Plaintiff must submit a redacted version for the public file.

BACKGROUND

This is a putative class action concerning a cyberattack that purportedly resulted in unauthorized disclosures of personal information, including private health information.

Recently, the parties reached a settlement.  In part, the settlement requires Plaintiff’s individual claims to be dismissed with prejudice and the class and representative claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Here, Defendant moves to seal the settlement agreement.

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:

* the motion is unopposed;

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

* the overriding interest supports sealing the settlement amount 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 agreement – i.e., all information except the settlement amount and private contact and/or identification information – is nonconfidential and should not be sealed.  This portion of the motion to seal is denied.

Plaintiff needs to submit a redacted version for the public file that complies with these findings.