Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV15820, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15820    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

              Defendants Ron Dalah and Amanda Grove (collectively, Defendants) move to seal unredacted copies of the following documents with the Court: (1) Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, and (2) Declaration of Robin Jung in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.  None of the remaining parties have filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

To grant a motion to seal, the court must expressly find that: (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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule  2.550(d); see¿McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc.¿(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)  

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent “open court” policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-10.)  Consequently, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; filing under seal requires a court order.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe¿(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.) 

A sealing order must be sought by means of a motion (or application) and accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, as well as evidence and testimony containing facts sufficient to justify the mandatory findings required to support a sealing order.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d) & 2.551(b).)  The proponent of the sealing order must also conditionally lodge the unredacted matter to be sealed with the court.  (Id., rule 2.551(b)(4).) 

             Here, Defendants advance the declaration of counsel for Defendants, Robin Jung (Counsel).  Counsel states the parties agreed to the inclusion of a confidentiality provision as a term of their settlement. (Declaration of Robin Jung, ¶ 4.)  According to Counsel, confidentiality of the settlement agreement is an express provision that was specifically requested and agreed by the settling parties through the settlement process (Declaration of Robin Jung, ¶ 6.) Counsel further avers the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement is a material term of settlement.  (Declaration of Robin Jung, ¶ 4.)

The Court recognizes the parties have an overriding interest in their contractual obligation not to disclose the terms of their confidential settlement agreement.  (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1284.)  Consequently, the Court grants the motion to seal and the Court will sign the proposed order sealing the requested papers.

Notwithstanding, the Court notes that Defendants filed on December 14, 2022 with the Court “Defendants Ron Dalah’s and Amanda Grove’s Notice of Lodging Confidential Materials in Support of Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.”  Those papers are currently part of the Court’s docket which is accessible to the public.  Instead, Defendants should have filed a redacted version of the papers it requests to have sealed (which they did so) and should have lodged an unredacted version of the pleadings it requests to have sealed per the California Rules of Court.  If Defendants find that the Court’s comments are correct, upon Defendants’ request to the Court, the Court will order “Defendants Ron Dalah’s and Amanda Grove’s Notice of Lodging Confidential Materials in Support of Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement” sealed and not accessible to the public.    

Defendants shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.