Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCV07952, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07952    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff A. Blackman’s Motion to Seal Guardian ad Litem Application is GRANTED.

I.      MOTION TO SEAL

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.

(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)

Plaintiff A. Blackman (Plaintiff) seeks to seal pages two and three of her guardian ad litem application or to redact portions of the signature line in order to protect the confidentiality of her identity and that of her mother. (Motion at p. 2.) Plaintiff has presented the redacted versions of the documents she seeks leave to have publicly filed. (Falk Decl. Exhs. A–C.)

Plaintiff has presented an overriding interest in her privacy that overcomes the right of public access to the records at issue. Courts have permitted the practice of anonymous filing in cases when anonymity is necessary ‘to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.” (See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4^th 758, 766–67.) It follows that records may be sealed to ensure this privacy remains intact. Plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest as a minor alleging sexual abuse. (See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1207, citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside County (1986) 478 U.S. 1, 9.)  Failing to do so would allow Plaintiff’s identity to be publicly disclosed. The proposed redactions are narrowly drawn to achieve this interest, and no less restrictive means are available.

The motion to seal is GRANTED, and Plaintiff may redact the pages at issue as proposed.