Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2018-00993688, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
MOTION FOR OSC RE CONTEMPT
Defendant A&K Billing, LLC (“A&K”) moves for an order to show cause regarding contempt against Plaintiffs, their counsel, and their witness Krystal de la Piedra, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1201, et seq. Defendant Equaltox, LLC’s joins the motion. The motion is denied.
Plaintiffs submitted three declarations by their investigator Krystal de la Piedra. In the declarations, she stated under penalty of perjury that: (1) she had been “informed by [her] physician that depending on the results of [her] follow-up appointment, [she] could be ordered to remain on further bed rest and/or bed rest for the duration of [her] pregnancy,” (5/9/2022 de la Piedra Decl., at ¶ 2 [ROA 1003]; Portales Decl., at ¶ 4, Exh. A); (2) she “saw [her] doctor on May 10, 2022 and was placed on bed rest for at least the next four weeks” and understood she “could be ordered to remain on bed rest for the duration of [her] pregnancy,” (5/15/2022 de la Piedra Decl., at ¶ 2 [ROA 997]; Portales Decl. at ¶ 5, Exh. B); and (3) her doctor “has put [her] on strict bed rest for the duration of [her] pregnancy” and “also advised [her] that [she] should not be testifying at trial, whether by video from [her] home or in person,” (5/26/2022 de la Piedra Decl., at ¶ 2 [ROA 1007]; Portales Decl. at ¶ 6, Exh. C.)
The affidavit from A&K’s counsel, the investigative reports, and video footage do not sufficiently indicate that de la Piedra perjured herself when she declared that her doctor put her on bed rest or advised her that she should not be testifying at trial. The motion for an order to show cause to be issued, is denied. (See Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286 [court must sign an OSC re: contempt if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit].) Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Plaintiffs Blue Cross of California and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company’s motion to seal portions of materials filed with A&K’s ex parte application to shorten notice and advance the hearing date of its motion seeking an order to show case regarding contempt, is granted. The documents entitled “A&K’s affidavit supporting its application for an OSC re indirect contempt” (ROA 1046 and 1058) and the videos that were lodged with the Court (see ROA 1048) are ordered sealed.
Plaintiffs move for an order to seal and remove from the public record (1) Exhibits D to U attached to A&K’s affidavit, filed on August 12, 2022 [ROA 1058]; and (2) Exhibits D to U attached to A&K’s affidavit, filed on August 10, 2022 [ROA 1046]. These exhibits consist of various investigative reports and video footage of de la Piedra and others, including her spouse and minor child. (See ROA 1046, 1048, 1058.) The Court conditionally sealed these exhibits on August 17, 2022. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to file a public redacted version of A&K’s affidavit supporting its application for an OSC re indirect contempt. (8/17/2022 Minute Order.) Plaintiffs filed the public redacted version of the affidavit. (ROA 1093.)
The Court finds there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to these records that supports this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550.) Specifically, de la Piedra and others, particularly her husband, nanny, and son who are not involved at all in this litigation, have a constitutional right to privacy in her home address and “the details of [their] personal life.” (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) As our Supreme Court has explained, privacy “is not a binary, all-or-nothing characteristic.” There are “degrees and nuances to societal recognition of our expectations of privacy: the fact that the privacy one expects in a given setting is not complete or absolute does not render the expectation unreasonable as a matter of law.” (Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 915–917.) Although the right is not “absolute,” the court must balance this right of privacy against other considerations. (Valley Bank of Nevada, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 657.)
Here, whether de la Piedra perjured herself is an ancillary issue in this litigation. The sealing of these exhibits is narrowly tailored, because Plaintiffs are not requesting that the statements in the affidavits, themselves, be redacted and has filed a public redacted version. (See ROA 1093.) Thus, sealing these exhibits would not “interfere” with the public’s right of access to the fact that the declarant is being accused of perjuring herself in the supporting declarations. This record can be preserved without needlessly exposing the information and identities of nonparties in these court filings. (See Gordon v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1557-1558 [granting writ for petition of mandate where records seized from law office of attorney who not target of criminal investigation should not have been unsealed, without showing of relevance and good cause to invade privacy of uninvolved clients].)
The court declines to award sanctions. The motion refers to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, but does not show any compliance with that statute’s requirements. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f).)
Plaintiffs shall give notice of the ruling.