Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2018-01023341, Date: 2022-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jessica Manion’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to seal the court file in the instant action is denied. 

As a preliminary matter, the motion was not properly served on all parties.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1005.)  Plaintiff did not file any proof of service of the moving papers.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).)  Litigants who choose to represent themselves must be treated in the same manner as represented parties and must follow the correct rules of procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)  A self-represented litigant is not entitled to any greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 [self-represented litigants are entitled to same treatment as represented parties]; see Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.6(15) [defines “parties” as including both self-represented persons and persons represented by an attorney of record without making any distinction between them].) The fact that Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant does not relieve her of the requirements, law, and procedures applied to all parties who appear in this court.  Self-represented litigants are “held to the same standards as attorneys.”  (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

The California Supreme Court recognizes a recognizes a “First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court as a basis for adjudication.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208, fn. 25; see Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)

To grant a motion to seal, the court must expressly find that: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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); McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.) 

Plaintiff asserts that her case concerned the habitability conditions of the unit that eventually led to an unlawful detainer.  She argues that unless the entire court file is sealed, credit reporting agencies would have access to the court file and learn that there was an eviction action that depicted her as a problematic tenant and revealed information about her two minor children.  In essence, Plaintiff believes that this information would impair her ability to obtain safe and affordable rental housing in the future.  Plaintiff has not provided any case or statutory authority that requires the fact of an eviction to be kept confidential.  Additionally, Plaintiff chose to include her minor children as plaintiffs in this action.  Plaintiff has not provided any facts or law sufficient to support any of the findings required to seal the court file.  Accordingly, the motion is denied. 

The Clerk shall give notice of the ruling.