Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01209568, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s motion to seal documents is granted in part. 

The California Supreme Court 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.) 

Here, the court finds that the confidential personnel records of peace officers overcome the right of public access to this information, and that there is a substantially probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed.  (Pen. Code, § 832.7.)  The sealing will be narrowly tailored because the parties are ordered to file redacted versions of the documents, which omit only the portions of the documents that are confidential personnel records of peace officers.  No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

As a matter of logistics, the Court cannot seal only portions of documents that have already been filed.  Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to seal Register of Action (“ROA”) 50, 51, 52, 53, and 73.  No later than September 26, 2022, Plaintiff is ordered to electronically file and serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Evidence in Opposition to Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motions with pages 1 through 4 unredacted and pages 5-237 redacted.  (See ROA 73.)  No later than September 26, 2022, Defendants are ordered to electronically file and serve copies of the Declarations of Joanne Madden in support of the anti-SLAPP motions with Exhibits A and B redacted and the remainder of the Madden Declarations unredacted.  (See ROA 50, 51, 52, and 53.)   

The Regents of the University of California assert: “Given that both the Penal Code and Evidence Code mandate confidentiality of law enforcement personnel records, CRC Rules 2.550 and 2.551 do not apply.”  (Mot., at p. 4.)  The Regents of the University of California misconstrues 2.550(a)(2).  The Advisory Committee Comment to Rule 2.550 states in relevant part:

The rules do not apply to records that courts must keep confidential by law.  Examples of confidential records to which public access is restricted by law are records of the family conciliation court (Family Code, § 1818(b)), in forma pauperis applications (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.54 and 8.26), and search warrant affidavits, sealed under People v. Hobbs (1993) 7 Cal.4th 948.)

(Advisory Com. com., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550 [emphasis added].)  In other words, when such records are presented to the Court, the party need not follow the procedures of Rule 2.551 to have the document filed under seal.  In contrast, if the parties in the instant action file confidential documents, those documents are not necessarily  automatically filed under seal.  The parties are reminded that for future filings, they are to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.551 (procedures for filing records under seal) when filing confidential documents. 

Defendant The Regents of the University of California shall give notice of the ruling.