Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV34645, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants and Cross-Complainants Azealia Banks, et al.;
Paymon John Vafa, Epulum Law

On November 7, 2023, and November 8, 2023, counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Azealia Banks and Lasagna Girl, LLC, filed Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel with redactions.

A motion or application to file under seal must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) “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;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

Pursuant to Rule 2.550(e), “[a]n order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

“A request to seal a document must be filed publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration or affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” (In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416.) “[A]t a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

Defendants move for an order to file under seal the Notice of Motion, proposed Order and Proof of Service filed in connection with each of the two Motions to be Relieved of Counsel, and the proof of service for this motion, because Ms. Banks’s email address, who is a well-known celebrity, appear in the foregoing documents. Counsel for Defendants is concerned that if the e-mail address is placed in the public record, Ms. Banks will be bombarded with e-mails sent to her personal e-mail address.

An order granting the motion to seal is unnecessary. Defendants seek only to redact Ms. Banks’s email address. Filing redacted versions of the Notice of Motion, proposed Order and Proof of Service filed in connection with each of the two Motions to be Relieved of Counsel, and the proof of service for this motion, will sufficiently address concerns regarding Ms. Banks’s personal contact information. (See, e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1284 [holding that a settlement agreement that contains a confidentiality clause does not qualify for sealing after all references to financial and other confidential data have been redacted].) As such, the Court finds that there does not exist an overriding interest in the confidentiality of the foregoing documents relating to Ms. Banks’s personal e-mail address necessitating a sealing order. The information may be redacted.

On November 7, 2023, and November 8, 2023, Paymon John Vafa, counsel for Defendants and Cross-Complainants, Azealia Banks and Lasagna Girl, LLC, filed these Motions to be Relieved as Counsel.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Paymon John Vafa seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants/Cross-Complainants for the following reasons: “Irreconcilable differences that makes it impossible to adequately represent this client. Client is concerned of her address being public record by filing substitution of counsel form. If the Court requires more information, counsel Paymon John Vafa requests an in camera discussion in chambers discussing the matter with no other counsel present except for client and representative given adequate and legally proper written consent to appear on behalf of client.” (MC-052.)

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

Upon review, the Court finds the Motions comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

The unopposed Motions are granted and effective upon the filing of the proof of service

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).)