Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 21SMCV01083, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01083    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 205

Background

This case arises from a breach of contract claim. On June 18, 2021, Plaintiff Pierre Caland (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Alexander J. Davis (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 10. On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of oral agreement; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) accounting; (4) conversion; (5) equitable lien; and (6) constructive trust.

On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed an ex parte application for trial continuance. In support of the ex parte application, Defendant provided a declaration from his counsel, Michael D. Mulvaney (“Mulvaney”). On that date, Defendant lodged the unredacted declaration of Mulvaney and its accompanying exhibit in support of the ex parte application conditionally under seal with the Court.

Also, on February 26, 2024, Defendant filed and served the instant unopposed Motion to Seal the Declaration of Mulvaney in support of Defendant’s ex parte application. The motion is made on the grounds that Mulvaney’s declaration in support of the ex parte application contains sensitive, private medical information about Defendant.

On February 27, 2024, after an in-chambers review, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue trial. (02/27/24 Minute Order.) Jury trial was continued from April 15, 2024 to September 30, 2024. (02/27/24 Minute Order.)  

Legal Standard/Applicable Law

            “[S]ubject to certain exceptions . . . a court record must not be filed under seal without a court order.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4^th 471, 486.) “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.” (Id.) “In doing so, the moving party must lodge with the court the record for which the sealing order is sought. The court holds the record conditionally under seal until it rules on the motion or application.” (Id. at p. 486-487.)   

            In order for records to be sealed, “a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that (i) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4^th 1273, 1279.) “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c).) “Since court records are public records, the burden rests on the party seeking to deny public access to those records to establish compelling reasons why and to what extent these records should be made private.” (Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 317.)

            “[A] person’s medical history . . . falls within the zone of informational privacy protected by the state and federal Constitutions.” (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4^th 1036, 1068.) Medical records are deemed “as presumptively private.” (Id. at p. 1070.) “The public, through tis courts and legislatures, has recognized that medical records are constitutionally private and statutorily confidential.” (Ibid.)

Analysis

In support of the motion, Defendant provides a declaration from his counsel, Robert E. Hess (“Hess”). On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed an unopposed ex parte application for a trial continuance. (Hess Decl., ¶ 2.) Mulvaney submitted a declaration in support of the application in which Mulvaney discusses Defendant’s recent traumatic brain injury, its related effects on Defendant’s medical condition, and Defendant’s ability to prepare for and attend trial. (Hess Decl., ¶ 2.) The Mulvaney declaration also attaches a letter from Defendant’s treating physician that discusses his injury and provides standard recommended accommodations. (Hess Decl., ¶ 2.) The Mulvaney declaration contains Defendant’s private, sensitive, and confidential medical information, and Defendant does not wish for the information to be made public generally or to be part of the public court record. (Hess Decl., ¶ 3.) Given the sensitive information discussed in the Mulvaney declaration, Defendant requests that the Mulvaney declaration (including its attachment) be sealed from the public court file. (Hess Decl., ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that Defendant has stated sufficient facts to justify sealing. Defendant only seeks to seal the Mulvaney declaration in support of Defendant’s ex parte application and the attached medical record thereto. Defendant has a right of privacy in his medical records. The Court finds that Defendant has an interest in his medical privacy, which is not connected to the allegations of the complaint or the operative FAC in this action. Defendant does not have to “state the obvious in a declaration, that [he] would be personally embarrassed to have [his] medical records copied into court records.” (Oiye v. Fox, supra, 211 Cal.App.4^th 1036, 1070.)

Moreover, given that the motion is unopposed, there is an inference that the motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4^th 1403, 1410.)    

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Seal the Declaration of Michael D. Mulvaney filed in support of the Ex Parte Application for Trial Continuance.

Dated: April 5, 2024

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court