Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Beverly M. Haller by and through her Successor-In-Interest, Richard A. Haller, Richard A. Haller, and Melissa Haller (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Santa Paula Post Acute, LLC dba Santa Paula Post Acute Center, LBCSP Skilled, LLC, Matthew Haller and Does 1 through 200 arising from the death of decedent Beverly M. Haller. The complaint sets forth four causes of action for (1) Elder Abuse, (2) Negligence, (3) Violation of Residents Rights, and (4) Wrongful Death. 

On August 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking to seal their Motion under CCP §664.6 for an Order and Entry of Judgment Enforcing the Terms of The Settlement Agreement (referred to hereinafter as “Motion to Enforce Settlement” or “Motion”). 

On September 12, 2024, defendant Santa Paula Post Acute, LLC dba Santa Paula Post Acute Center (“Defendant”) filed an application to file under seal its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement, and simultaneously filed a redacted version of the Opposition. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) Consequently, pleadings, motions, evidence, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; rather, a prior court order is necessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).)¿¿¿ 

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. (CRC, rule 2.551 (b).) The motion or application¿must¿be accompanied by a memorandum and a¿declaration containing facts sufficient¿to justify the sealing. (Ibid.)  

In order for records to be sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that: (1) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (2) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (3) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no¿less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.¿(Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th¿1273, 1279; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)¿ 

Since court records are public records, the burden rests on the party seeking to deny public access to those records to establish compelling reasons why and to what extent these records should be made private. (Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 317.)¿ 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

The Court will first address Plaintiffs’ motion before turning to Defendant’s application to seal.  

Plaintiffs seek to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement amount contained within the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant pursuant to a confidentiality provision of the agreement. In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, the court considered the issue of whether a confidential settlement agreement can be redacted at length. The Universal court found that a contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d) (adopted as rule 2.550(d).) (Id. at 1283.). 

Although the Court agrees that a confidentiality provision may support an overriding interest, Plaintiffs’ request is overbroad. It appears that rather than seeking to seal the specific portions or references to specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement that are subject to the confidentiality clause, Plaintiffs instead broadly seek to seal the entirety of the Motion to Enforce Settlement. California law recognizes a constitutional right of access, grounded in the First Amendment, to court proceedings and court documents. (In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 1068, 1078.) There is no basis to seal the entirety of the Motion, which goes above and beyond the purpose sought for its sealing. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to seal the entirety of the it, the motion to seal is denied. However, the Court will consider the sealing should Plaintiffs provide a proposed redacted version that is narrowly tailored to serve the specific overriding interest. 

Defendant’s application to seal the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement suffers from the same issue of overbreadth. Defendant argues it seeks an order sealing only that portion of the declaration containing the settlement amount, which the Court agrees would be narrowly tailored to protect the stated interest. However, Defendant’s opposition already redacts this information by omitting reference to the specific dollar amount. Further, the portions Defendant did redact does not contain any specific or substantive confidential information regarding settlement discussions as averred. The back and forth between Counsel regarding the settlement agreement, couched very generally, and a letter simply requesting removal of the motion to enforce settlement, does not qualify as confidential as to outweigh the public’s constitutional right of access. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the Motion to Enforce Settlement is CONTINUED to ______________. Plaintiffs are to submit a proposed redacted version of the Motion no later than five (5) court days prior to the hearing.  

Defendant’s application to seal the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: September 24, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.