Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 18STCV10371, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 26, 2022

Case Name: Ora v. The Grand Sherman Oaks, et al.

Case No.: 18STCV02815 

Matter: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Defendants the Grand Sherman Oaks, LLC and Alliance Communities,

Inc. 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Scott Douglas Ora

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On October 29, 2018 Plaintiff Scott Ora filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) housing discrimination under California Government Code section 12955(a) on the basis of disability, (2) otherwise making a dwelling unavailable in violation of California Government Code section 12955(k), (3) unlawful interference under California Government Code section 12955.7, (4) violation of Civil Rights, and (5) negligence against Defendants the Grand Sherman Oaks, LLC and Alliance Communities, Inc. 

On June 17, 2022, Defendants the Grand Sherman Oaks, LLC and Alliance Communities, Inc. filed a motion to enforce settlement.

Defendants now seek to seal portions of their motion to enforce settlement as well as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to the Declaration of Melissa T. Daugherty.  Defendants contend these documents contain confidential settlement discussions.

Plaintiff Ora states that he does not specifically object to Defendants’ request, but that he would like to point out that there was never any settlement reached and so there cannot be any confidential settlement information.

On July 22, 2022, the Court ruled that the parties did not reach a settlement.  Nonetheless, a desire to maintain confidentiality is apparent from the settlement drafts, and it would be anomalous to expose the parties’ negotiations simply because a final agreement was not reached.  

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to public review.  (Cal. Rules of Court 2.550(c); see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1) [“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business”].)  “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.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)

Here, sealing is warranted because there was an agreement as to confidentiality which tends to promote settlements; if there is no sealing order, Defendants may not engage in further settlement discussions given the risk of exposing their discussions to other tenants; the sealing order is directed only at settlement drafts and communications; and there are no less restrictive means to maintain confidentiality.  

In sum, the Motion to Seal is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.