Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV02619, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02619    Hearing Date: January 27, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from a dispute between neighbors over allegedly overgrown trees on Defendant Connie Chein’s (“Defendant”) property, allegedly obstructing the view from the property of Plaintiffs Skye Hoppus and Mark Hoppus, as trustees of the Rollo Tomassi Trust (“Plaintiffs”). 

            On December 26, 2024, in connection with their discovery motions, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Lodging unredacted confidential records subject to a protective order. 

            Defendant now moves to seal those records, as well as the Declaration of Connie Chein filed in support of this motion to seal.  Defendant’s motion is unopposed.     

LEGAL STANDARD

            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, subd. (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.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)¿

To grant a motion to seal, a trial 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).) “If the trial court fails to make the required findings, the order is deficient and cannot support sealing.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th  471, 487; see also In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1087 [“express findings must be made to seal records”].)

DISCUSSION

The parties have not lodged or filed any protective order with this Court.  The Los Angeles Model Stipulation and Protective Order provides:

17. Where any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules. With respect to discovery motions or other proceedings not governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the following shall apply: If Confidential Materials or Information derived from Confidential Materials are submitted to or otherwise disclosed to the Court in connection with discovery motions and proceedings, the same shall be separately filed under seal with the clerk of the Court in an envelope marked: “CONFIDENTIAL – FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SEALING ORDER REQUIRED.”

            If the parties’ operative protective order contains a similar provision, lodging the documents that are designated confidential with the Court under seal suffices to keep those records sealed without the need for the instant motion.  However, because the parties have not submitted any such protective order to the Court, they have not demonstrated that any such provision applies.  Thus, the Court examines the document in question – Exhibit 10 – to determine whether Defendant has an overriding privacy interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record.

            Here, the document in question is a notarized Individual Grant Deed, bearing the Los Angeles Recorder’s Office stamp and bearing the recording number 93-2163667, a Memorandum changing the trustee of one of the involved trusts, a notarized certificate of trust, a notarized but unrecorded corrective grant deed, and a memorandum and affidavit of change of trustees.

            In support of her contention that she has an overriding privacy interest in the trust documents, Defendant cites to Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1 (hereafter Hill).  In Hill, the California high court recognized two categories of privacy – (1) sensitive and confidential information; and (2) interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (“autonomy privacy”).  (Id.at p. 35.) 

            Sensitive and confidential information involves information the dissemination of which would cause unjustified embarrassment or indignity.  (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 35.)  Autonomy privacy protects intimate and personal decisions from government interference.  (Id. at p. 36.)

            “Actionable invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right. Thus, the extent and gravity of the invasion is an indispensable consideration in assessing an alleged invasion of privacy.”  (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37.)  In Hill, the court held that the NCAA’s drug testing program did not violate the state constitutional right to privacy.  (Id. at p. 57.)

            Here, the Court does not find that Defendant’s privacy interests in the structure of the trusts that hold title to Defendant’s home overcomes the public’s right to access the records, especially where, as here, the trusts hold title to real property in documents that either were or should have been publicly recorded.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal.  The unredacted versions of the documents related to Plaintiffs’ discovery motions, including the Declaration of J. Boustani and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel, shall be publicly filed within 10 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

            Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  January 27, 2025                            ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court