Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV00877, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00877    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

 

MOTION TO SEAL 

Hearing Date: 11/8/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV00877 SHARITA RANDLESTON vs NICOLE LORRAINE LINTON, et al.¿ 

Moving Party: Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC 

Responding Party: Unopposed 

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: GRANTED 

 

Background 

On August 20, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Kaiser’s prior motion to seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kristen Mussman ("Mussman Declaration") and portions of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Latanya Simmons in connection with Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against Plaintiff. On August 23, 2024, Kaiser filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Kaiser now seeks to seal the same exhibits, as well as portions of the memorandum and Separate Statement that refer to the sensitive information stated in these exhibits. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

Legal Standard 

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d), the Court may order a record to be sealed if it expressly finds that: 

  1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right of access to the record; 

  1. The overriding interest supports sealing the record; 

  1. There is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 

  1. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 

  1. No less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest. 

Overriding interests that may justify sealing include privacy rights, trade secrets, and confidential business information. (See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46; McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989.) The party seeking to seal a record must make a specific showing as to each of these elements. (See Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b).) Courts routinely find such interests compelling where public access to the information would result in harm to a party’s competitive standing or an individual’s right to privacy. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283; People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1028.) 

Discussion 

In its August 20, 2024, order, the Court granted Kaiser’s motion to seal these same documents in connection with Kaiser’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. The Court finds no change in circumstances that would justify departing from its prior ruling. Notably, Plaintiff did not file an opposition alleging a change in circumstances or prejudice. 

The Court finds good cause to grant KFHP’s Motion to Seal under California Rule of Court 2.550(d), as the records contain sensitive business and personal information that warrants protection over the public’s right of access. Specifically, Exhibit 1 to the Mussman Declaration contains proprietary contractual terms and strategic details that, if publicly disclosed, would risk competitive harm to KFHP. Portions of Exhibit 1 to the Simmons Declaration include Defendant Linton’s private health information, along with KFHP’s confidential billing data, both of which involve significant privacy concerns. 

The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, targeting only these specific sensitive portions, with public redacted versions provided to ensure transparency while protecting critical interests. Denial of the motion would prejudice KFHP’s business interests and compromise Linton’s privacy rights. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists to grant KFHP’s Motion to Seal pursuant to California Rule of Court 2.550(d). Thus, the motion is granted.  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿ 

 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

 

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

 

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.