TENTATIVE RULING

Nonparty Tulin Shannon’s Motion for Unsealing of Documents is DENIED.

Nonparty Tulin Shannon to give notice. 

REASONING

Nonparty Tulin Shannon (“Shannon”) moves the Court for an ordering unsealing Defendant/Decedent Halil Parlar (“Decendent”)’s Motion for Protective Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Deposing Defendant Halil Parlar, filed in this action on February 3, 2017. The motion asserted Decedent was incompetent and lacked capacity and provided detailed information to support such statements, and the motion was sealed. Shannon now seeks to use this information, which may include references to medical records and reports, in a pending trust action wherein Shannon contends Decedent was under undue influence or lacked capacity when the testamentary documents were executed. (Mot., Martin Decl. ¶¶ 2, 10, 14.) Defendant Josette LeRoy (“LeRoy”), who is a responding party in the probate litigation, has refused to stipulate to the unsealing of the motion for a protective order. (Mot., Martin Decl. ¶ 12.) Shannon argues that her ability to litigate her claims in the probate matter will be compromised if the motion is not unsealed, as it contains relevant and contemporaneous information regarding Decedent’s mental state during the time the testamentary documents were executed. (Mot., Martin Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.) LeRoy opposes the present motion to unseal the motion for protective order. Nonparty Elvis Parlar has also filed an opposition to the motion to unseal in his individual capacity and as Successor Trustee of the Revocable Trust of Halil Parlar dated April 7, 2014, as amended.

“A sealed record must not be unsealed except on order of the court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(h)(1).) “In determining whether to unseal a record, the court must consider the matters addressed in rule 2.550(c)-(e)” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(h)(4)), which provide that “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open,” and the trial 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(c), (d).) “The order unsealing a record must state whether the record is unsealed entirely or in part.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(h)(5).)

The Court finds that unsealing the record is unwarranted here. Shannon seeks to unseal the subject motion on fairness grounds, i.e., she will be prejudiced in her ability to litigate in the probate action because LeRoy knows the information in the subject motion while she does not, but this is not a proper basis for unsealing a document. Shannon has not argued that the Court’s order sealing the motion was improper in any respect, and it is axiomatic that it is proper to protect a party’s privacy right in their medical information by sealing documents. Further, Shannon can attempt to obtain the information in the motion by deposing LeRoy or other individuals to assess their knowledge of Decedent’s mental state during the time the testamentary documents were executed. Accordingly, Nonparty Tulin Shannon’s Motion for Unsealing of Documents is DENIED.

Evidentiary Objections

LeRoy objects to certain statements within the declaration of Stephen M. Martin. The Court declines to rule on Objection Nos. 1 through 9, as the statements at issue were not material to the Court’s ruling herein. Objection Nos. 10 and 11 are OVERRULED. LeRoy also objects to certain statements within the declaration of Tulin Shannon. The Court declines to rule on the objections, as the statements at issue were not material to the Court’s ruling herein.

Nonparty Elvis Parlar also objects to certain statements within the declaration of Stephen M. Martin. The Court declines to rule on Objection Nos. 1 through 6, as the statements at issue were not material to the Court’s ruling herein. Objection No. 7 is OVERRULED. Parlar also objects to certain statements within the declaration of Tulin Shannon. The Court declines to rule on the objections, as the statements at issue were not material to the Court’s ruling herein.