Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV00399, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00399    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Albinali v. Calvert et al., Case No. 21SMCV00399
Hearing Date December 15, 2022
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Deposition Transcript

Plaintiff Albinali’s deposition was taken on July 20, 2022. Defendants filed excerpts from the transcript in support of their motion to compel Albinali’s further deposition. Albinali moves to seal those portions of the transcript on the grounds that they contain personal identifying information.

There is a First Amendment right of access to court documents used at trial or as a basis for adjudication. NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4^th 1179, 1208, fn. 25. In response to this holding, the California Judicial Counsel implemented rules 2.550 and 2.551, which set forth the requirements for sealing court records. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 486. 

California Rule of Court 2.550(d) lists factual findings required before a court can order a record sealed. Rule 2.550(a)(3), however, explicitly exempts “discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings . . . that are not used at trial or submitted for a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings” from these requirements. 

The transcript was filed in support of a discovery motion, defendants’ motion to compel Albinali’s further deposition. Per Rule 2.550(a)(3), the rules for sealing do not apply. But plaintiff is required to provide some justification for sealing. Albinali provides only conclusory arguments, stating her address and date of birth are “sensitive personal information.” This is insufficient. The “sensitive personal information” is not, for example, private medical or financial information or a social security number, which might justify sealing. DENIED.