Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV36489, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36489    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 9

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 9

Background

            This is a putative declaratory and injunctive relief class action. Plaintiffs Keshara Shaw, Alma Rosa Farias de Solano; Josue Ricardo Gastelum-Campista; Maritza Gonzalez; Ronnie Heard, Jr.; Deyanira Hooper; Judith Larson; Vincenta Martinez; and Akela Wroten, Jr. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD” or “District”), its superintendent Austin Beutner, and Relief Defendant United Teachers Los Angeles (“UTLA”) failed to implement a distance learning plan sufficient to meet the needs of LAUSD’s academically disadvantaged students during the 2020 spring semester. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants’ plan for Fall 2020 distance learning remained inadequate to meet LAUSD students’ needs. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants’ failures deprived Plaintiffs’ children and the putative class members of rights guaranteed to them by the Education Code and the California Constitution.

On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint. On May 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their operative Second Amended Complaint. In the SAC, Plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action: (1) wealth discrimination in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution; (2) disparate racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution; (3) violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the California Constitution; (4) violation of Article IX, §§ 1 and 5 of the California Constitution; (5) violation of Government Code § 11135; (6) violation of Education Code § 43503; (7) declaratory relief; and (8) failure to provide basic educational equality in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution.

On September 14, 2021, the Court – presided by the Honorable Yvette M. Palazuelos – entered judgment in favor of Defendants LAUSD, Austin Beutner, and UTLA dismissing the action.  On January 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued its remittitur affirming the judgment of dismissal in part as to Austin Beutner and reversing the judgment of dismissal as to Defendants LAUSD and UTLA as to the first, second, and eighth causes of action – i.e., the constitutional claims.

On December 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and to set an expedited briefing schedule.  In conjunction with this ex parte application, on December 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to file records in support of ex parte application under seal.  No opposition or reply have been filed.

Legal Standard

            “The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication. [Citation.] Substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases, and the transcripts and records pertaining to these proceedings, are ‘ “presumptively open.” ’ [Citation.]” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596–597.)  As the Supreme Court has explained, “the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system, and that interest strongly supports a general right of access in ordinary civil cases.” (NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178,1210.)  “Openness is a presumption; it is not an absolute. The ‘presumption of openness can be overcome upon a proper showing’ compatible with the constitutional standards. [Citation.]”  (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 31.) 

California law authorizes the sealing of court records containing confidential information.  (NBC Subsidiary, Inc., supra, 20 Cal.4th at p.1222, Fn.46.)  California Rules of Court, 2.551(a) provides that a record may not be filed under seal without a court order, and the court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.  (Cal. Rules of Court, 2.551(a).)  The party requesting a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record that is accompanied by a memorandum or declaration containing facts to justify the sealing.  (Cal. Rules of Court, 2.551(b)(1).)  “The court may order that a record be filed under seal” if it finds that there is an overriding interest in favor of maintaining the confidentiality of the information.  (Cal. Rules of Court, 2.550(d).)

The court may order a record sealed if it finds that (1) an overriding interest exists 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 request is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, 2.550(d); See also Savaglio, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p.597 [“Therefore, before a trial court orders a record sealed, it must hold a hearing and make findings that (1) there is an overriding interest supporting sealing of the records; (2) there is a substantial probability that absent sealing, such interest will be prejudiced; (3) the sealing order is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) a less restrictive means of meeting that interest is not available.”].)

“As the party seeking an order sealing [] court records, [the moving party] has the burden to ‘justify the sealing.’”  (McNair, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p.32.)

Discussion

            Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of the Declaration of Judith Larson attached as exhibit 51 to the Declaration of Edward Hillenbrand in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application for Ex Parte Application and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Expedited Motion to Compel Briefing Schedule and Hearing.  Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to seal the name of Plaintiff Judith Larson’s daughter – a minor enrolled at South Gate High School.

Overriding Interest

“Under the common law right of access, court records are presumed to be ‘“open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality.”’”  (In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1078.)  “Public access to civil proceedings serves to (i) demonstrate that justice is meted out fairly, thereby promoting public confidence in such governmental proceedings; (ii) provide a means by which citizens scrutinize and check the use and possible abuse of judicial power; and (iii) enhance the truthfinding function of the proceeding.”  (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1219.)  Thus, documents may only be sealed if “(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.”  (Id. at p.1218.) 

“In terms of the overriding interest requirement of a closure or sealing order, NBC Subsidiary identifies two separate elements. The first element requires the identification of an overriding interest.”  (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.)  “The second element of the overriding interest analysis is there must be a substantial probability that it will be prejudiced absent closure or sealing.”  (Ibid.) 

The right of privacy in the California Constitution (art. I, § 1), “protects the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.”  (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [italics in original]; See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [“In Hill, we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.  The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.”].)

As the Supreme Court has “previously observed, the right of privacy extends to sexual relations (Vinson v. Superior Court, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 841, 239) and medical records (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 41.).”  (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198.) 

The names of minors are regularly considered private information that overcomes the right of public access to Court records.  For example, the Rules of Court require appellate courts to reference minors by first name and last initial to protect personal privacy interests.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.90(b)(9).)  Further, many Courts already require the sealing or similar redaction of minors names.  (See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 140.)  Accordingly, Plaintiffs show an overriding interest in sealing the name of Plaintiff Judith Larson’s minor daughter.

The Proposed Redactions are Narrowly Tailored

Exhibit 51 to the Declaration of Edward Hillenbrand in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application for Ex Parte Application and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Expedited Motion to Compel Briefing Schedule and Hearing are sufficiently narrowly tailored to protect Plaintiff’s interest in sealing the name of Plaintiff Judith Larson’s minor daughter.  The only portion sealed in these two documents is the name of Plaintiff Judith Larson’s minor daughter.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Keshara Shaw, Alma Rosa Farias de Solano; Josue Ricardo Gastelum-Campista; Maritza Gonzalez; Ronnie Heard, Jr.; Deyanira Hooper; Judith Larson; Vincenta Martinez; and Akela Wroten, Jr.’s motion to file records in support of ex parte application is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs must electronically file under seal an UNREDACTED version of Exhibit 51 to the Declaration of Edward Hillenbrand in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application for Ex Parte Application and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Expedited Motion to Compel Briefing Schedule and Hearing FORTHWITH.

Any future motion to seal in the instant action must be heard on the same date as or prior to the hearing on the motion that the moving party seeks to seal; if necessary to assure that the motion to seal is heard concurrent with or before the hearing on the motion that the moving party seeks to seal, the moving party must file a properly noticed ex parte application to advance the hearing and shorten time on the briefing schedule for such a motion.

The Judicial Assistant shall give notice to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are ordered to file proof of service of the instant order on all other parties within 5 days.

DATED: February 27, 2025                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court