Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV04378, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04378    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff Kayote James (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging eight causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) false promise; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) conversion; (7) violation of Penal Code section 496; and (8) unfair business practices.  Attached to the original complaint was an unredacted copy of the parties’ contract.

            The Parties have now submitted a stipulated joint application to seal the version of Plaintiff’s Complaint that was already filed and to allow the filing of an identical version with Defendant’s bank account and routing number information redacted.

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

California Rules of Court, rule 1.201(a)(2) provides:  “To protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests, parties and their attorneys must not include, or must redact where inclusion is necessary, the following identifiers from all pleadings and other papers filed in the court’s public file, whether filed in paper or electronic form, unless otherwise provided by law or ordered by the court: […] (2) Financial account numbers.  If financial account numbers are required in a plead or other paper filed in the public file, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used.”

Thus, the information the parties seek to redact is generally the proper subject of such a redaction or motion to seal.

However, “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order” and “The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)  Specifically, “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.  The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b), emphasis added.)

Here, the parties have provided the requisite memorandum and Declaration of Kathryn L. McCann, which provides:

3. Plaintiff Kayote James (“Plaintiff”) electronically filed her Complaint in this matter on September 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s Complaint attaches, as Exhibit A, a document described as the contract between the Parties. However, the version of Exhibit A attached to the public filing contains Defendants’ financial information that should have been redacted pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 1.201(a)(2).

[…]

The proposed redactions are only to the financial account information found in Exhibit A to the Complaint. A true and correct copy of the proposed redacted Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

(McCann Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.)

As such, the Court finds that Defendant has an overriding interest in the financial information that overrides the public’s interest in accessing that information and that supports sealing the record and allowing Plaintiff to file the redacted version.

There exists a substantial probability that Defendant’s privacy interests in its financial information will be compromised if the record is not sealed. Further, because Plaintiff will only redact out Defendant’s specific bank account information from Exhibit A to the Complaint, the request is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants the parties’ stipulated application to seal the version of the Complaint currently on file and to permit the filing of the version of the complaint as redacted.   

            Further, the Court orders the parties to confer and cooperate with the Clerk of the Court to implement the Court’s orders. 

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

DATED:  January 14, 2025                            ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court