Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00033, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00033    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff Michael Levin (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant Kecia Golay (“Defendant”).  Defendant answered the complaint on January 19, 2024.  On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff requested, and the Court granted, dismissing the entire action without prejudice.   

            Plaintiff now moves to seal the entire case record.  Plaintiff’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(c); see¿NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1999)¿20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-1110.)¿ 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

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1161.2, subdivision (a) concerns the public’s access to unlawful detainer case records and provides:

(1) The clerk shall allow access to limited civil case records filed under this chapter, including the court file, index, and register of actions, only as follows:

(A) To a party to the action, including a party’s attorney.

(B) To a person who provides the clerk with the names of at least one plaintiff and one defendant and the address of the premises, including the apartment or unit number, if any.

(C) To a resident of the premises who provides the clerk with the name of one of the parties or the case number and shows proof of residency.

(D) To a person by order of the court, which may be granted ex parte, on a showing of good cause.

(E) Except as provided in subparagraph (G), to any person by order of the court if judgment is entered for the plaintiff after trial more than 60 days since the filing of the complaint. The court shall issue the order upon issuing judgment for the plaintiff.

(F) Except as provided in subparagraph (G), to any other person 60 days after the complaint has been filed if judgment against all defendants has been entered for the plaintiff within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, in which case the clerk shall allow access to any court records in the action. If a default or default judgment is set aside more than 60 days after the complaint has been filed, this section shall apply as if the complaint had been filed on the date the default or default judgment is set aside.

(G)       (i) In the case of a complaint involving residential property based on Section 1161a as indicated in the caption of the complaint, as required in subdivision (c) of Section 1166, to any other person, if 60 days have elapsed since the complaint was filed with the court, and, as of that date, judgment against all defendants has been entered for the plaintiff, after a trial.

(ii) Subparagraphs (E) and (F) shall not apply if the plaintiff filed the action between March 4, 2020, and September 30, 2021, and the action is based on an alleged default in the payment of rent.

(2) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the court from issuing an order that bars access to the court record in an action filed under this chapter if the parties to the action so stipulate. 

            Here, because Plaintiff dismissed the action against Defendant, by operation of law, access to case records should be limited only to those individuals specified in sub-sub-subdivisions (A) through (D).   Further, the parties have stipulated to seal the record.  (Ex. 1 to Lee Decl.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and orders that access to the Court’s records are sealed.  The Court will enter the proposed Order lodged with the Court on August 26. 2024. 

            Further, Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  September 18, 2024                       ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court