Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV00598, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00598    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: R

The motion to seal is GRANTED as discussed below.  Defendants seek to file certain documents under seal.  The documents are being filed in support of their motion to compel.  The motion is unopposed.  Defendants seek to compel the production of documents from Netflix and the documents at issue are in support of that motion. 

Generally, motions to seal are governed by California Rule of Court 2.550 et seq.  It requires that the court find that there is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access and that supports sealing the record, and that absent sealing, the interest will be prejudiced.  Further, the sealing must be narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the interest.  Those rules, however, do not apply to discovery motions. 

The court agrees that the rule does not, by its terms, apply to this motion.  However, the court does not believe that ends the matter.  The point of the rule is that what happens in court is the public’s business.  As such, the public has a presumptive right of access to any document filed in court that pertains to a decision made in court and that right is of constitutional dimension.  Ordering the production of a document is a decision made in court, and thus it is presumptively the public’s business.  That said, because discovery is so wide-ranging (all that generally need be shown is that the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence), the court believes that the rule can be applied with somewhat more flexibility than in other contexts, and the public’s right of access, while real, is not as strong.  The same general rubric applies, though.  That is, the court must balance the public’s right to know against a party’s (or third party’s) right to keep truly confidential information confidential.

Here, some of the documents pertain to a third party’s medical information.  The court agrees that the third party has an overriding privacy interest in that information.  For purposes of a discovery motion—as opposed to a merits motion—the public’s interest in that medical information is diminished.  That interest can only be protected by filing the documents that are direct medical records under seal and redacting other documents that go in part to medical information.  Other documents in question go to the identity of alleged victims of a sexual assault where the victims’ identities have not been disclosed.  The court agrees that victims of these alleged crimes have a strong overriding privacy interest in keeping their names out of the public spotlight and that the interest can only be protected by redacting documents that contain identifying information.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  The documents in question may be filed under seal.  Where the entire document must be protected, the public file will contain a notice that “Exhibit __ has been filed under seal pursuant to court order.”  Where redactions are more appropriate, the redacted document will be filed in the public file with the cover page notation that “Exhibit ___ has been redacted and the unredacted document has been filed under seal pursuant to court order.”  The unredacted document will then be filed under seal. 

This order is made without prejudice to any person seeking to unseal the documents in the future.  Should such a motion be made, the court will consider the motion (which must be served on all parties in this case) as well as any opposition thereto.