Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 25STCP00644, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 3, 2025

Case Name: Loomis Armored US, LLC v. Castillo

Case No.: 23STCV00413 

Matter: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Loomis Armored US, LLC and Jessie Hernandez

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Seal is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Loomis Armored US, LLC (“Loomis”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Rafael Castillo for (1) violation of Pen. Code § 496, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) conversion.  Plaintiff alleges that it has a cash delivery service and that its employee, Castillo, stole $36,000. 

On June 13, 2024, the Court consolidated this matter with Rafael Castillo v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, et al., Case No. 23STCV04436. Therein, Castillo brings claims for discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent misconduct, wrongful discharge, and defamation against Loomis and also five of its employees, Jessie Hernandez, Nolan Tate, Ryan Shake, Urias Jimenez, and John Toliano.   Castillo alleges that he had been an excellent employee for years, but when Shake was hired, he orchestrated a scheme in which he hired two younger employees, had Castillo completely train them, and then fired Castillo through a false assertion that he stole $36,000.  Castillo alleges that the LAPD and District Attorney found no probable cause for an arrest and that he has not been charged for any crime.  

Loomis and Jessie Hernandez now seek to seal certain exhibits attached to their MSA.  They contend that “the information and documentation . . . reference or comprise Loomis’s personnel policies, security processes, and internal business reports related to Loomis’s security of currency that are not in the public domain. In particular, the documents describe to a degree the layout of Loomis’s Montebello, California branch and the cash vaults therein, as well as the locations and vantage points of security cameras throughout the facility. The documents also describe the processes by which large sums of money are held and transported within and outside Loomis’s facility. These documents include descriptions of methods, techniques, and processes relating to Loomis’s handling of money that, if in the wrong hands (e.g., those of Loomis’s competitors or individual wrongdoers), could result in their improper economic gain.” 

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 there is an overriding confidentiality interest with respect to the subject documents; this interest supports a sealing order; if there is not a sealing order, sensitive information will be exposed; the sealing order is narrowly tailored; and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest.

The Motion is granted.

All sealed documents for the MSA hearing must be emailed in unredacted form to cmoslemi@lacourt.org.

Moving party to give notice.