Case Number: 22STCV40862    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20

Hearing Date:             September 20, 2024

Case Name:                 Doe v. Religious Technology Center, et al.

Case No.:                    22STCV40862

Matter:                        (1) Motion to Seal

                                    (2) Motion for OSC re: contempt

Ruling:                       The Motion to Seal is granted.

                                    The Motion for an OSC re: contempt is denied.

                                    Moving party 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.

1. Motion to Seal

Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to seal her identity and use a pseudonym.

Defendants Scientology International and Bridge Publications, Inc. make a number of procedural arguments, which are rejected.

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.)

The Court finds that a sealing order is warranted.  There is an overriding interest to the extent this action relates to sensitive facts pertaining to child sexual abuse and there is a potential for physical retaliation in relation to another lawsuit (see Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (2000) 214 F.3d 1058, 1068); if there is not a sealing order, Plaintiff could be subject to physical threats and humiliation; the sealing of Plaintiff’s name is narrowly tailored; and there are no less restrictive means to protect Plaintiff under the circumstances.

Thus, the Motion is granted.

2. Motion for Contempt

            Plaintiff seeks an OSC re: contempt.  Plaintiff states that “[o]n February 14 and March 22, 2024, this Court issued two orders relating to Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [ ], both of which expressly direct that all briefing and evidence in connection with Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was closed and prohibiting the parties from filing any additional evidence, briefing, or papers in connection with the motion. Now, in defiance of these orders, defendant Church of Scientology International [ ] and its attorney of record have acted in contempt of the Court’s clear direction and filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery [ ] that contains impermissible briefing and evidence in support of their motion to compel arbitration.”

            Even were Defendant’s actions improper, this is not a matter for which the Court would typically hold a litigant in contempt or award fees.  If the filing is not warranted, it will simply be stricken. 

            Defendant’s filing is not unwarranted.  The Court’s prior orders did not preclude any separate motions.

            The Motion for Contempt is denied.

Moving party 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.