Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: SC128407, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC128407    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: O

______________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR ORDER TO AMEND SETLEMENT OF THIS CASE TO ALLOW FREE SPEECH FOR ALL PARTIES; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SEAL RECORD

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Stewart Lucas Murrey

RESP. PARTY:         None as of 7-21-22

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Stewart Murrey’s Motion for Order to Amend Settlement of this Case to Allow Free Speech for All Parties, or in the Alternative, to Seal Record is DENIED.

            Murrey asks that he be relieved of his settlement obligation not to comment on this case other than to say, “This dispute has been settled.”  Plaintiff Murrey fails to cite any authority for his extraordinary request to unilaterally amend the parties’ settlement agreement.  The request to amend the settlement agreement is denied.

Plaintiff Murrey also asks that the Court seal the records in this case.  Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public.  See CRC 2.550(c).  Therefore, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties.  The parties' agreement that certain documents be filed under seal is improper and insufficient.  See Savaglio v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600.  A prior court order must be obtained. See CRC 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.  At a minimum, a party seeking to seal documents must come forward with a specific list of facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.  Id. at 894.  “Before substantive courtroom proceedings are closed or transcripts are ordered 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.”  NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Supr. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that other courts have recognized a contractual obligation not to disclose as an overriding interest that would justify sealing.  See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc., supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1222, fn. 46.  However, the mere fact that parties have agreed that a document is confidential is alone insufficient grounds to seal the entire document.  Thus, in Huffy Corp. v. Supr. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, the Court unsealed a settlement agreement where the moving party failed to identify specific portions of the settlement agreement it wanted sealed, the settlement agreement contained routine verbiage and the settlement agreement specifically stated that the confidentiality provision would be inapplicable if disclosure were ordered by the Court.  Huffy, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 107.  Under these circumstances, disclosure of the entire settlement agreement would not prejudice or severely injure the overriding interest in maintaining confidentiality per the parties’ agreement. 

Plaintiff’s request to seal is non-specific and overbroad.  Plaintiff does not identify specific facts or documents to seal. Plaintiff is asking that the entire case be sealed, because third parties are publishing case documents and making misleading or false statements based thereon.  Plaintiff’s arguments do not establish justification for sealing, nor is his request narrowly tailored.  Plaintiff’s request to seal is denied.