Judge: Mary H. Strobel, Case: 22STCP00287, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP00287    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 82

Petitioner Knock LA (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of mandate directing Respondent County of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or “County”) to produce all records responsive to multiple requests made by Petitioner pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). 

Application to Seal

Respondent “seeks an order sealing the unredacted version of the Declaration of Lieutenant Jose N. Aguirre, Jr. and exhibits thereto, and the unredacted version of the Declaration of Michael Dean to protect the safety and privacy of third party witnesses, as well as information subject to a court order prohibiting disclosure.”  (Appl. to Seal 3:3-6.)

“[S]ubstantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases are ‘presumptively open.’”  (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217.)  To allow sealing of the record, including redactions thereof, the court must make the necessary findings under California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551. 

California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 authorizes sealing when the court finds (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing of such records; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing of the arrest report is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.  (CRC Rule 2.550(d).)  “The Court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.”  (CRC 2.551(a).)

Paragraph 19 of Aguirre Declaration and Exhibits Y, Z, AA, and BB

Respondent moves to seal paragraph 19 of the Aguirre declaration and Exhibits Y, Z, AA, and BB.  Respondent has not lodged copies of exhibits Y, Z, AA, and BB conditionally under seal with the court.  In a conference call between the court and parties on April 24, 2023, it was agreed that Respondent did not need to lodge Exhibits Y, Z, AA, and BB because, as Petitioner admits in opposition, Respondent has already produced the unredacted Concealed Carry Weapon permittee list (“CCW List”) at issue.   Accordingly, the motion to seal those exhibits is denied.  Because Respondent has not lodged Exhibits Y, Z, AA, and BB conditionally under seal, there are not sealed records for the court to return to Respondent.  (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(6).) 

Respondent has not shown that there is any sensitive information in paragraph 19 of the Aguirre declaration.  The information in paragraph 19, specifically that “LASD is prohibited from disclosing any additional information [related to the CCW List] pursuant to a court order,” is disclosed publicly in Respondent’s opposition brief filed March 10, 2023.  (Oppo. 2:21-24.)  The court could not make the findings required by Rule 2.550(d) for paragraph 19 of the Aguirre declaration.  The motion to seal that paragraph is denied.

Paragraph 12 of the Dean Declaration

Respondent contends that “[t]hird parties will be prejudiced by disclosure [of paragraph 12 of the Dean declaration], because it will place their potential safety at issue and subject them to unwarranted embarrassment, shame and humiliation.”  (Appl. to Seal 4, citing Dean Decl. ¶ 13.)  The evidence Respondent cites is the following unredacted paragraph from Dean’s declaration: “LADA believes the public interest in the investigation of officer-involved-shootings would be greatly compromised if the public disclosure of investigatory materials imperiled the potential safety of third party witnesses, or subjected third party witnesses to unwarranted embarrassment, shame and humiliation, and that the benefit of disclosure is greatly outweighed by the public interest in obtaining the cooperation and truthful testimony of witnesses to officer-involved-shootings.”  (Dean Decl. ¶ 13.)  

As Petitioner argues, this generalized statement in paragraph 13 of the Dean’s declaration does not support the findings under Rule 2.550(d).  (Oppo. 5.) 

Respondent also cites redacted paragraph 12 to support the findings required by Rule 2.550(d).  (Appl. 4:1-2.) In the application, Respondent asserts that the overriding interest that supports the proposed sealing is the protection of witnesses to criminal investigations.  (Appl. 3.)  There is an overriding interest in protecting the anonymity of witnesses who may be identified in reports of criminal investigations that are otherwise disclosable under SB 1421, discussed infra. (See Penal Code § 832.7(b)(6)(B).)  The issue is whether paragraph 12 of Dean’s declaration creates a risk of disclosure of the identities of any witnesses. 

Paragraph 12 itself does not identify the names or identities of any witnesses to a criminal investigation.  Paragraph 12 does provide some information about the circumstances under which witnesses participated in the underlying criminal investigations into the shooting deaths of Jamaal Simpson and Anthony Weber.  Respondent discloses the general nature of this information in its opposition brief, but without disclosing pertinent details that could potentially lead to the discovery of the witness identities.  (See Oppo. 7:1-24.)  Because Respondent has disclosed in its public opposition brief certain statements from paragraph 12, the court cannot make the findings required by Rule 2.550(d) as to those statements.  (See Dean Decl. p. 4:3-6, 4:15-18, 5:1-5, 5:14-18.)  Further, Respondent does not show an overriding interest in a sealing order or that the sealing is narrowly tailored with respect to the generalized statement at paragraph 12.e and p. 5:19-24.

With respect to the remainder of paragraph 12, the court denies the motion to seal for two reasons.  First, the information in paragraph 12 with respect to the circumstances under which witnesses participated in the underlying criminal investigations is so generalized that it does not support a finding of an overriding interest in non-disclosure.  Respondent’s evidence is not particularized to show a realistic threat to the safety or privacy of any particular third party. 

Second, sealing this information would prevent Petitioner from knowing at least part of the basis of Respondent’s reasons for withholding information under the Public Records Act.  Petitioner may not be able to effectively dispute the basis for non-disclosure if that very basis is withheld.  Respondent cites no authority for such a questionable result.

The motion to seal is denied.  Under California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b), the court will either order the public filing of the unredacted declarations of Dean and Aguirre, or return them to Respondent.  If returned to Respondent, Respondent may not rely on the contents of redacted portions of the declarations in support of its opposition to the writ, nor will the court consider that information.