Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 23STCV28523, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28523    Hearing Date: June 21, 2024    Dept: 11

Byars (23STCV28523)

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Seal

Date:                           6/21/24

Time:                          10:00 am

Moving Party:           Arisha Byars (“Plaintiff”)

Opposing Party:        None

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to seal is granted.

BACKGROUND

This is a putative class action concerning website spyware.

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

At issue is Plaintiff’s motion to seal.  Plaintiff’s declaration and his counsel’s declaration disclose the settlement amount.  Plaintiff moves to seal the settlement amount.

On May 2, 2024, the motion to seal came on for hearing.  The Court continued matter and ordered Plaintiff to submit a copy of the settlement agreement.

On June 4/2024, Plaintiff submitted the copy.

Now, the Court considers whether the motion to seal should be granted.

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

In light of these rules, the Court finds that the motion to seal should be granted because:

* the motion is unopposed;

* an overriding interest exists in keeping the settlement amount confidential;

* the overriding interest supports the sealing request;

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

* the sealing request is narrowly tailored given that Plaintiff only seeks to redact the references to the settlement amount; and

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