Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SMCV01861, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19SMCV01861 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 19SMCV01861
MOTION: Motion
to Seal
HEARING DATE: 2/27/2025
Legal
Standard
The sealing of trial court records is governed by CRC Rules 2.550 and
2.551. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60,
68.) Pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed
under seal merely by stipulation of the parties—a prior court order must be
obtained. (CRC, Rule 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151
Cal.App.4th 879, 888.) To seal a record, the following requirements are
imposed: (1) the party must file a motion or application for an order
sealing the record, which must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration
containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing; (2) the party
must serve a copy of the motion on all parties who have appeared in the case;
and (3) the party requesting that a record be filed under seal must
lodge it with the court when the motion or application is made unless the
record has previously been lodged. (CRC, Rule 2.551(b).)
The Court must make the following
express factual findings in order to seal records: (1) an overriding
interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2)
the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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. (CRC, Rule 2.550(d).) These findings embody constitutional requirements for a request to seal
court records, protecting the First Amendment right of public access to civil
trials. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20
Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)
An order sealing the record must
specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing
of only those pages and documents or, if reasonably practicable, portions of
those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed
under seal, and all other portions must be included in the public
file. (CRC, rule 2.550(e).)
Once sealed, a record can only be unsealed by order of court. (CRC, Rule
2.551(h)(1).) So long as it remains under seal, all parties must refrain from
filing anything not under seal that would disclose the sealed matter. (Id.,
Rule 2.551(c).) If a party files a new document referring to sealed matter, it
must submit an unredacted version of the document under seal and a redacted one
for the public record. (Id., Rule 2.551(b)(5).)
ANALYSIS
Defendant Jenney Lee moves to seal
the entire case file associated with case no. 19SMCV01861. Defendant identifies
a confidentiality agreement as part of the justification for sealing the entire
record. A contractual obligation not to disclose certain confidential information
could constitute an overriding interest. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
Superior Court¿(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283-1284.) However, more than
a mere agreement of the parties is needed to seal court documents. (Id.)
Defendant claims that the contents
of the case are unnecessarily jeopardizing the privacy of the parties. She
claims that this action has had a demeaning effect on her life, as she has lost
job prospects and not been able to get back into a viable position in the
corporate world because this case’s records are viewable online with a simple
search of her name. (Lee Decl., ¶5.) She lives in constant persecution for
having been accused of abuse, discrimination, alcoholism, mental-illness, crimes,
violence, sexual deviance, etc. (Id., ¶ 6.) The Court agrees that such contents
would be strikable or support a sealing order if not strikable. The parties’ privacy
rights support sealing sensitive medical and sexual information. (Ruiz v.
Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850; see Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletics¿Ass’n¿(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 41 [“A person’s medical profile is an
area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in quality and nature
than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.”].) In fact, the
Court notes that it has already struck numerous allegations and exhibits from
the record on this very basis. The Court also notes that the entire court filing
is replete with material that should be stricken and jeopardizes the privacy of
defendant by including irrelevant personal identifying information and other
irrelevant intimate information. As to
such information, Defendant would have an overriding interest that overcomes
the right of public access to the record, and a substantial probability exists
that that interest will be prejudiced if the entire record is not sealed. Sealing
only specific exhibits or redacting only portions of the pleading would be
insufficient under the unique circumstances of this case.
Therefore, the motion is GRANTED
and the case file is ordered SEALED.