Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00932, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00932    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 27, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         JOHNNY TRANG, an individual, v. CITY OF PASADENA, a public entity, VAROOJAN AVEDIAN, an individual; SUZANNE STONE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV00932

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL COURT RECORDS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Johnny Trang

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed March 19, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff files an ex parte application to seal court records.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff’s Johnny Trang (“Plaintiff”) claim that he was subjected to discrimination during his employment with the City of Pasadena. Plaintiff filed this complaint on July 15, 2021, alleging seven causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) work environment harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent harassment discrimination and retaliation, (5) retaliation, (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and (7) failure to engage in good faith interactive process.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s application to seal is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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 Rule 2.550, subd. (d). (Emphasis added)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order sealing documents pertaining to his medical condition and employment history. Plaintiff seeks an order replacing nine documents filed in the course of this litigation with redacted versions. The nine documents include: (1) Plaintiff’s complaint, (2) Defendant’s motion to compel mental examination, (3) Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion, (4) Defendant’s reply, (5) this court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel, (6) Defendant’s notice of ruling, (7) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (8) Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and (9) Defendant’s reply.

            California courts have “recognized ‘that a person's medical history, including psychological records, falls within the zone of informational privacy protected’ by the state and federal Constitutions.” (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1068.)

            Plaintiff, in part, relies on Oiye to support his motion. In Oiye, the trial court had ordered sealed documents that amounted to the plaintiff’s personal treatment journal, and the plaintiff was unaware how defendant obtained those documents. (Oiye, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1063.) The appellate court noted that “disclosure to an opponent in civil litigation does not necessarily waive the patient's privilege to keep the information from third parties, including the public.” (Id. at p. 1068.)  Aside from this analysis of whether the Plaintiff has shown an overriding interest that supports sealing, the Plaintiff requests that the court redact a whole host of documents.  These documents include copies of the complaint which they themselves filed, along with various motions and even court rulings and minute orders which contain no private or personal information.  The Plaintiffs have not made any serious effort to narrowly tailor their request as required by the aforementioned CRC.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s application to seal is therefore DENIED.

Dated:   March 27, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court