Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a breach of a commercial lease.  Defendant High Noon Office, LLC is the Landlord, and Plaintiff Shegerian & Associates APC f/k/a Shegerian & Associates Inc. is the Tenant.  Tenant leases the 4th and 7th floors of a commercial office building known as the Clocktower Building, located at 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, California.  

This hearing is on Tenant’s motion to file records under seal, filed in connection with Tenant’s opposition to Landlord’s motions in limine.  Tenant argues that portions of its medical expert’s declaration include Carney Shegerian’s date of birth and medical history.  The Court previously granted an ex parte application to seal the same materials encompassed within Tenant’s current motion to seal.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD  

An application to seal must be accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(b)(1).)  Tenant has submitted the declaration of Robert Kashfian explaining the facts which justify sealing.     

A court may order records to be filed under seal when the following conditions are met: “(1) [t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record[s]; (2) [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record[s]; (3) [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record[s are] not sealed; (4) [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”  (Cal. Rules of Court 2.550(d).) 

In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must identify (1) the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public disclosure, (2) the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and (3) any countervailing considerations. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) Therefore, in order to prevail on his or her motion, the moving party must present a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and the specific reasons for withholding them. (Id. at 904.) 

The California Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment provides “a right of access to ordinary civil trial and proceedings.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212.)  The court further noted its belief that “the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system.”  (Id. at 1210.)  There is a presumption of openness in civil court proceedings. (Id. at 1217.)  Therefore, it is up to this Court to determine if that presumption has been overcome. 

Courts must find compelling reasons, prejudice absent sealing and the lack of less-restrictive means, before ordering filed documents sealed. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1246; KNBC-TV, 20 Cal.4th at 1208-1209 n. 25; Champion v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 777, 787.)   

A¿compelling reason¿could include the party’s right to privacy of¿medical records.¿(Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1068-1070.)  Courts have recognized that the need to protect¿medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for¿sealing records, since medical records contain sensitive and private information about a person's health."¿(Pirtle v. Nurse Rosa, (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198949, 2021 WL 4810330, at *1¿(citing cases).) 

A proposed sealing must also be narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, such as by sealing only portions of pleadings or redacting particular text that refer to the confidential information. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052, 1070.)   

DISCUSSION 

The Court concludes that all of the conditions for sealing are present here.  The Court finds there is a compelling interest to seal Shegerian’s private and medical information.  Shegerian’s overriding interest in maintaining his confidential medical information would be prejudiced if the documents sought to be sealed were disclosed.  Additionally, the sealing order is properly tailored to seal only the portions of the expert’s declaration that reveal the confidential information.  And there is no less restrictive means to protect Shegerian’s privacy interests.  The Court has also previously ordered the exact same materials sealed when filed in connection with a different motion.     

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Shegerian & Associates’ motion to seal.   

 

DATED: March 13, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court