Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01158, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV01158 Hearing Date: May 7, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Barnes, et
al., v. California Landmark Group, et al.
CASE NO.: 23SMCV01158
MOTION: Motion
to Seal
HEARING DATE: 5/7/2025
Legal
Standard
The sealing of trial court records is governed by California Rules of
Court, 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
Defendants California Landmark
Group; YLD West LA, LLC; CLG Vermont Holdings, LLC; CLG Woodland Plaza, LLC and
CLG Gower, LLC moves to seal all substantive statements found in the following
filings:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Civil Case Cover
Sheet filed on March 15, 2023;
(2) Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed
March 15, 2023;
(3) Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Arbitration filed on July 27, 2023;
(4) Declaration of Ari Kahan in
support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on July 27, 2023;
(5) Declaration of Brandon O.
Miller in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on July 27,
2023;
(6) Plaintiffs’ Case Management
Statement filed on August 25, 2023;
(7) Defendants’ Case Management
Statement filed on August 28, 2023;
(8) Defendants’ Case Management
Conference Statement filed on November 22, 2023;
(9) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on November 27, 2023;
(10) Plaintiffs’ Compendium of
Exhibits in support of their Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Arbitration filed on November 27, 2023;
(11) Plaintiffs’ Objections to
Defendants’ Evidence in support of their Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on
November 27, 2023;
(12) Defendants’ Reply to
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on
December 1, 2023;
(13) Minute Order dated December 8,
2023; and
(14) Defendants’ Notice of Ruling
filed on December 14, 2023.
Defendants argue that this case
involves a “confidential” and “private dispute” which was never intended to be
litigated publicly, but instead subject to an arbitration agreement. Defendants
note that Plaintiffs have entirely abandoned their claims by filing a Notice of
Retraxit. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of joinder to this motion.
The Court will not seal the record
as requested. Defendants have not identified a cognizable privacy interest, let
alone an overriding interest which would overcome the right of public
access. Beyond a conclusory claim that this action involves a private dispute, Defendants
posit no evidence that there is a substantial probability that their privacy interest
would be prejudiced if the record was not sealed. (See Kahan Decl., ¶¶2-3.) In
the memorandum, Defendants speculate that their “reputation and goodwill” might
be harmed if the allegations of this suit remain publicly filed, but otherwise
cite no competent evidence to this effect. (Mot. at p. 5.) Also, Defendants
cite no authority that such speculation might overcome the right of public
access.
Even considering such an interest
as “overriding,” Defendants do not show the proposed redactions are narrowly
tailored or the least restrictive means existing to achieve their claimed interest. In
effect, Defendants request that the court’s records on this action be redacted in
their entirety. The Court cannot see how redacting the entire record
could be “narrow” or that “no less restrictive means” exist to protect
Defendants’ reputation.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.