Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV42697, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42697    Hearing Date: February 9, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Rasier, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

I.         INTRODUCTION 

                On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff Nitzan
Micheli filed a complaint against Defendants Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, Rasier
LLC, and Does 1 through 100, asserting a single cause of action for negligence arising
from a November 29, 2017 motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff later added Defendant Anthony Petito and Defendant
Stephan Roubinian as Doe Defendants. Defendant Avis Budget Car Rental was
subsequently dismissed from the action. 

          Defendant
Rasier, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies.  During mediation on July 31, 2023, Plaintiff
reached a settlement with Defendants Rasier, LLC and Roubinian. (Declaration of
Jon S. Brick (“Brick Decl.”), ¶
2.) 
The settlement is contingent on a finding of good faith.  (Id. at ¶ 3.)  Under the "confidentiality"
provision of the settlement agreement, the settling parties agreed "to
strict confidentiality regarding the: (1) Release and all of its terms, (2) the
fact of settlement, settlement amount, any prior offers, and negotiations
leading up to this Release, (3) identity of the Parties to this Release, and/or
( 4) facts giving rise to this Release that could identify any Released Party
..... " (Id. at ¶
4.) 
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, and in light of the fact that
Defendant Petito remains a defendant in the action, Defendant Rasier, LLC
intends to file a motion for determination of good faith settlement. 

          In
order to honor the aforementioned confidentiality agreement, Defendant Rasier,
LLC filed the instant motion to seal portions of motion for determination of
good faith settlement and exhibits to be filed in support of that motion. 

          No
opposition has been filed.

II.        Motion to Seal

A.  
Legal
Standard

Unless confidentiality is
required by law, court records are presumed to be open to public review.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd.
(c).)  “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, subd. (d);
see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20
Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)

A “court must not permit a
record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of
the parties.” (In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566,
1578 (quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a)), internal quotations
omitted.)

B.  
Discussion

During
mediation on July 31, 2023, Plaintiff reached a settlement with Defendants
Rasier, LLC and Roubinian.  (Brick Decl.,
¶ 2.)  The settlement is
contingent on a finding of good faith.  (Id.
at ¶ 3.) 
Under the "confidentiality"
provision of the settlement agreement, the settling parties agreed "to
strict confidentiality regarding the: (1) Release and all of its terms, (2) the
fact of settlement, settlement amount, any prior offers, and negotiations
leading up to this Release, (3) identity of the Parties to this Release, and/or
( 4) facts giving rise to this Release that could identify any Released Party
..... " (Id. at ¶
4.) 
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, and in light of the fact that
Defendant Petito remains a defendant in the action, Defendant Rasier, LLC
intends to file a motion for determination of good faith settlement. 

Now, Defendant
Rasier, LLC requests this Court to seal portions of the good faith motion
seeking the Court’s approval of the agreement, including any reference to the
settlement amount and the parties to the settlement.  

In
support of its motion, Defendant Rasier, LLC argues first that there is an
overriding interests in keeping portions of the settlement agreement
confidential because the settling parties expressly intended confidentiality.  (Motion p.
5; Brick Decl., ¶
4.) 
Second, Defendant argues the overriding interest in upholding the
parties’ contractual obligations to keep portions of the settlement confidential
supports sealing the record.  (Motion p.
5.) Third, Defendant argues that there is a substantial probability the
overriding interest of the settling parties would be prejudiced by disclosure
because disclosure could effect Defendant’s ability to negotiate specific
provisions in other settlement agreements with other parties, and disclosure
would defeat the purpose of entering into a confidentiality provision.  (Id. p. 6.)  Fourth, the proposed sealing is narrowly
tailored as Defendant requests to seal portions, including the amount of the
settlement and the parties to the settlement. 
(Id. p. 7.)  Lastly, Defendant
argues the only way to protect the confidentiality of the settlement agreement
without public disclosure is to seal the portions of the Good Faith Motion
relating to the settlement amount and the parties to the settlement.  (Id.)

While
the Court recognizes that the Motion is unopposed, the Court would like to hear
from the parties prior to ruling.