Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 21STCV30604, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30604    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 13, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Defendant City of Inglewood

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Wanda M. Brown

(1)   Application to Seal Supplemental Declaration of Mira Hashmall

(2)   Motion for Attorney Fees

            The court considered the application to seal records.

RULING

            The application to seal records is DENIED.  The motion for attorney’s fees is CONTINUED to October 6, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

BACKGROUND

On On August 18, 2021, plaintiff Wanda M. Brown filed a complaint against defendants City of Inglewood, Mayor James T. Butts, Jr., Alex Padilla, George Dotson, Eloy Morales, and Ralph Franklin for (1) violations Labor Code §§1102.5(b), (c), (2) IIED, and (3) defamation per se. 
            On August 23, 2021, plaintiff filed a FAC.  In the FAC, plaintiff alleges that she was and is a resident of City of Inglewood and has been employed by the City as the elected City Treasurer since 1987.  In November 2020, she was elected to her 9^th consecutive four-year terms as City Treasurer.  FAC, ¶1.  She has competently served as the City Treasurer for over 30 consecutive years.  She has served under three different City Mayors and is currently serving under the latest mayor, defendant James T. Butts, Jr.  Id., ¶15.  Beginning in late 2019 and continuing into 2020, plaintiff reported to Butts and the City Council that she had discovered facts indicating that defendant Butts (and his Council) were mishandling the City’s finances, including an improper payment of nearly $100,000 to a city contractor, Pinner Construction, which payment surprisingly had been signed-off by Mayor Butts himself (a highly unusual transaction).  Id., ¶16.  Plaintiff notified defendants that they had improperly failed to accurately report to the public the true financial health of the City.  Plaintiff raised concerns with defendants regarding the City’s declining cash balance, its increasing deficit spending and growing negative unrestricted fund balance, the need to curb spending, and about the wasteful and expensive use of outside consultants.  Id., ¶17. 

Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff’s reported concerns were met not with understanding and appreciation but rather with “the craziest, most outrageous, intolerable, indecent, extreme, wicked, despicable retaliatory conduct conceivable:  conduct absolutely intended by defendant Butts and his Council to punish Treasurer Brown and cause her severe mental and emotional distress.”  Defendants proceeded to retaliate against plaintiff by:  (1) issuing a Order that the Treasurer not be given access to the City’s financial records; (2) reducing her salary by 83% from $8,355 per month to just over $1,4043 per month; (3) taking away plaintiff’s seat at the City Council meetings; (4) stripping plaintiff of nearly all her long-held duties as City Treasurer, including effectively removing plaintiff from the City’s Investment Committee and reducing her once multi-million dollar investment authority to just over $500,000; (5) locking plaintiff and her staff out of City Hall and their offices; and (6) deactivating plaintiff’s office computer.  Id., ¶18. 

Plaintiff further alleges that in a “pathetic, pretextual attempt to justify his retaliatory actions,” on September 15, 2020, defendant Butts publicly defamed plaintiff at a City Council meeting by falsely accusing her—“of all people with her undergraduate and graduate degrees in Accounting and her decades of City Treasurer experience”—of lacking the requisite qualifications to be City Treasurer because she does not know the procedure for handling bad debts.  Defendant Butts knew this statement was false when he made it, and he knew it would necessarily harm plaintiff’s reputation and bring her shame and mortification.  Id., ¶20.  The fact that all bad debt identification and resolution responsibility rests solely with the Finance Department, not with the Treasurer, and the Treasurer’s qualifications are simply unassailable.  Id., ¶40.  “Not coincidentally, it comes as no surprise that without plaintiff to properly assist in the handling of the City’s finances, it was announced in early August 2021 that the City of Inglewood has issued a Declaration of Fiscal Emergency.  Before plaintiff was wrongfully defamed and retaliated against, plaintiff reported that defendants’ misdeeds would lead to a financial crisis in Inglewood.”  Id., ¶21.

On March 21, 2022, the court denied defendants’ special motion to strike as to the 1^st cause action in its entirety and the 2^nd cause of action to the extent that it incorporates allegations of retaliation.  The motion was granted as to the 3^rd cause of action in its entirety and the 2^nd cause of action to the extent it incorporates Mayor Butts’ statements.  The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend as to the 1^st and 2^nd causes of action. The demurrer was moot as to the 3^rd cause of action in light of the ruling on the special motion to strike.

On April 8, 2022, plaintiff filed a SAC.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 2.550(c) states:  “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”  But a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551.  CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1) states:  “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.  The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”  CRC Rule 2.550(d) states:  “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.”

DISCUSSION

            Defendants request that the court seal the supplemental declaration of Mira Hashmall in support of defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and Exhibit 1 thereto.

            The court notes that on July 7, 2022, the court continued defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees to allow defense counsel to file supplemental declaration as to the actual rates and amounts charged and to provide unredacted invoices.

            On September 1, 2022, defense counsel lodged an unredacted declaration and Exhibit 1 along with the herein application to seal the declaration and exhibit.

            In the application, defendants argue that the documents include proprietary and commercially sensitive billing rates, which are “discounted, blended hourly rates” provided to the City of Inglewood.  Defendants assert that the rate structure is the result of negotiations between Miller Barondess and Inglewood and reflect that Inglewood provides a consistent volume of litigation matters to the firm.  Defendants argue that the public disclosure of these rates could prejudice Inglewood’s ability to negotiate rates with other firms and Miller Barondess’ ability to negotiate and set rates with other clients and compete with other law firms that would have access to Miller Barondess’ “proprietary rate information.”

            The court finds the following:

(1) There does not exist an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record.  Defendants have not shown that a government entity, City of Inglewood, has a right to privacy as to the hourly rates it pays to its attorneys or any interest that overrides the right of public access, which supports transparency and accountability.

(2) There is no overriding interest that supports sealing the records.

(3) There is no substantial probability that exists that any overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed because there is no overriding interest.

(4) The proposed sealing is not narrowly tailored.

The application is thus DENIED.  Under Cal. Rules of Court, 2.551(b)(6), “If the court denies the motion or application to seal, the moving party may notify the court that the lodged record is to be filed unsealed.  This notification must be received within 10 days of the order denying the motion or application to seal, unless otherwise ordered by the court.  On receipt of this notification, the clerk must unseal and file the record.  If the moving party does not notify the court within 10 days of the order, the clerk must (1) return the lodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete the lodged record if it is in electronic form.”

The motion for attorney’s fees is CONTINUED to October 6, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of ruling.