Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC06031, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC06031 Hearing Date: January 17, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS
MOVING PARTY: Appellant
Admiranda Maxwell
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS
(CRC, rules
2.550, 2.551)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Appellant Admiranda
Maxwell’s Motion to Seal Records is DENIED.
SERVICE:
[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,
rule 3.1300) NONE
[
] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NONE
[
] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NONE
OPPOSITION: None filed as of January
10, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of January 10, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
& Discussion
On August 16, 2021, Appellant Admiranda Maxwell
(“Appellant”), in pro per, filed a notice of parking appeal against Respondent City
of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (“LADOT” or “Respondent”).
On October 8, 2021, after hearing and considering oral
testimony and reviewing the administrative record, the Court affirmed the
parking citation. (10-8-21 Minute
Order.)
On November 30, 2022, Appellant filed the instant Motion
to Seal Records (“Motion”) (erroneously reserved as “Motion for an Order to
Show Cause Re: Contempt”). The hearing
on the Motion was continued from December 15, 2022, to January 17, 2023, and
Appellant was ordered to give notice of the change. (12-15-22 Minute Order.)
II.
Legal
Standard
The
sealing of court records is governed by California Rules of Court rules 2.550
and 2.551.¿¿ (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein¿(2007) 158 Cal.App.4th
60, 68.) The presumption of open access
to court records does not apply to “records that are required to be kept
confidential by law.” ¿(Cal. Rules Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).)¿ A party seeking
to seal a court record or seeking to file a record under seal must do so by
motion or application supported by a declaration showing facts justifying the
record’s sealing. (Ibid., rule
2.551(b)(1).)
California
Rules of Court rule 2.550(d) states: “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.”¿¿
Once sealed, a record can only
be unsealed by order of court. (Ibid.,
rule 2.551(h)(1).) So long as it remains
under seal, all parties must refrain from filing anything not under seal that
would disclose the sealed matter. (Ibid..,
rule 2.551(c).) If a party files a new
document referring to sealed matter, it must submit an unredacted version of
the document under seal and a redacted one for the public record. (Ibid., rule 2.551(b)(5);¿H.B.
Fuller Co. v. Doe¿(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.)¿
III.
Discussion
The Court notes several deficiencies in the Motion.
First, the
Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a) which
requires a motion to contain a notice of hearing on the motion.
Second, Appellant has not filed proof that Respondent has
been served with the Motion and a notice of continuance as required by the
Court’s December 15, 2022, Order.
(12-15-22 Minute Order.)
Third, a motion to seal records must be supported by a declaration
showing facts justifying the record’s sealing.
Appellant has not filed a sworn declaration and the statements in the
instant Motion are not sufficient to justify sealing the record.
For these reasons, Appellant’s Motion is DENIED.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Appellant
Admiranda Maxwell’s Motion to Seal Records is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.