Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV06764, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06764    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff and Defendants Target Corporation, Watermark Security Group, Inc., and Brookfield Properties (USA) LLC entered into a settlement agreement. The Parties anticipate submitting Judicial Council Forms MC-350 and MC-351 (Petition and Order to Approve Compromise), which will disclose the settlement amount, fund allocation, and attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff moves to seal these details from the minor’s compromise records and hearings.

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed open to the public under a strong “open court” policy supported by the First Amendment and favoring public court proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-1200.) Pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers cannot be sealed by stipulation alone; a court order is required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.)

To grant a motion to seal, the Court must expressly find that:

1.  An overriding interest exists that overcomes the public right of access;

2.  The overriding interest supports sealing;

3.  There is a substantial probability 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 protect the overriding interest.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(1)-(4), (e); McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.) The constitutional policy favoring disclosure must be balanced against privacy rights and other factors. (People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1026-1027.) The Court has discretion in making factual determinations on a motion to seal. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285.)

A contractual obligation to maintain confidentiality constitutes an overriding interest under Rule 2.550(d). (Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen (3d Cir. 1984) 733 F.2d 1059, 1073; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the settlement contains a mutual confidentiality covenant as a material term. (Khedry Decl. ¶ 3.) Therefore, disclosing the settlement terms would breach the confidentiality clause, violating the parties’ contractual obligation not to disclose certain information, an overriding interest. This motion is narrowly tailored, seeking only to seal portions of the public record that reveal confidential settlement terms. The parties are not requesting to seal more than necessary to protect their agreed-upon confidentiality.

Moreover, no less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest in maintaining settlement confidentiality. Disclosing these terms would compromise the confidentiality agreement and the parties’ contractual obligations. Plaintiff has met all requirements under Rule 2.550(d) of the California Rules of Court. Defendants did not oppose the motion.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to seal the filing at issue. As to the proceeding, it will remain open, if the settlement amounts, net settlement, attorney fees, or costs need to be discussed, the Court will either close that portion of the proceedings or conduct discussions at sidebar or in chambers.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.