Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 22STCV36377 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCV36377, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Laurence Chandler, filed his application for sealing complaint and ex parte application on November 18, 2022. On that date, this court set the application to seal for hearing on December 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. (Notice of Ruling filed November 23, 2022.) The court indicated it would hear Plaintiff’s motion to seal before hearing his application for a writ of attachment on the same date.

Plaintiff provided Defendant, Yeezy Apparel LLC, with notice of the application and notice of the court’s ruling setting the matter for hearing. (Proof of Service filed November 30, 2022.) The court nonetheless finds Plaintiff has not provided proper notice because Plaintiff’s notice is deficient by one day. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Accordingly, the application is properly denied on notice grounds.

Assuming Plaintiff can show proper notice at the time of hearing, the court nonetheless would deny Plaintiff’s application to seal.

“A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil trials.” (In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575.) Orders to seal records in a civil proceeding implicate the First Amendment’s right of public access. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1778, 1212.)

“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 Court (CRC), Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).)

The court must make express findings to support sealing under CRC, Rule 2.550. Specifically, CRC, Rule 2.550, subdivision (d) provides:

“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds that:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

“Unredacted versions of these documents have been lodged with the Court. [Plaintiff] provide the Court with versions of the Complaint and Ex Parte Application that redact minimal information relating solely to a confidential settlement agreement (the ‘Agreement’) between [Plaintiff] and [Defendant], and a confidential arbitration between the parties.” (Application, 4:20-24.)

Plaintiff advises he wishes to seal those documents beyond the period permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 482.050.[1] (Application 4:25-5:4.) Plaintiff notes he is contractually required to keep the settlement agreement and facts concerning the arbitration confidential. Plaintiff also reports the “[a]greement and arbitration relate to the parties’ private, financial information and Defendant’s proprietary information.” (Application 5:10-11.)

In support of his application to seal, Plaintiff submits his own declaration through which he attests he is a party to an agreement “that obligates [him] to keep [the] arbitral proceedings confidential.” (Chandler Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff generally states: “These arbitral proceedings and documents relating thereto reveal confidential financial information belonging to the parties to this lawsuit, as well as confidential, proprietary information belonging to Defendant.” (Chandler Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff also reports he entered into an agreement with Defendant which “contains a confidentiality provision preventing any parties thereto from disclosing its contents . . . as well as confidential financial information regarding the parties to the lawsuit. I also understand that the Agreement contains confidential proprietary information belonging to Defendant.” (Chandler Decl., ¶ 3.)

The other evidence submitted by Plaintiff to support his application to seal includes a reference to paragraph 13 of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Eric M. George. It also includes a reference to a document that appears does not exist—Complaint, Ex. A at 1, 2 ¶ 1(e). The court has located Plaintiff’s agreement with Defendant in material submitted to the court. Paragraph 6 in that material is a broad sweeping confidentiality provision.

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC, Rule 2.550, subd. (c).)

An agreement between parties is insufficient to permit the sealing of court records “without a specific showing of serious injury.” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1282 [discussing Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen (3d Cir. 1984) 733 F.2d 1059].) While a contractual agreement not to disclose “can constitute an overriding interest with the meaning” of the sealing rules, there must some showing of harm resulting from disclosure. (Id. at 1283.) “ ‘In delineating the injury to be prevented, specificity is essential. [Citation.] Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” (Id. at 1282 [quoting In re Cedant Corp. (3d Cir. 2001) 260 F.3d 183, 194 quoting Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, supra, 733 F.2d 1059].)

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence demonstrating Plaintiff (or Defendant) will be harmed if the documents in this matter are not sealed. Plaintiff’s broad generalized statements do not support a claim that all of the material which Plaintiff seeks to seal is “confidential financial material” or “confidential, proprietary information belonging to Defendant.”[2] (Chandler Decl.,

¶ 2.) Given the volume and type of material Plaintiff has asked to seal, the court cannot find, as argued by Plaintiff, “if the information redacted in the Complaint and Ex Parte Application are not sealed, it would expose both [Plaintiff’s] and Defendant’s financial information to the public for review, inherently undermining their constitutional right to privacy.” (Application 6:21-23.)

Plaintiff’s declaration itself—not lodged conditionally under seal—reveals the parties engaged in arbitration and entered into an agreement. The publicly filed form complaint also reveals Plaintiff is asserting a breach of contract claim against Defendant, his “longtime employee” as well as requesting damages of $3,850,000. Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of his application for a writ of attachment (Memo) reveals the parties have a “settlement” and Defendant attempted to “renege on the settlement . . . .” (Memo 12:17-18.)

Despite such publicly revealed facts, Plaintiff requests such facts to be sealed. (See, e.g., Memo 2:24, 3:3-5, 3:10-11, 5:6-7, 5:15, 8:5, 8:13, 11:6-7, 14:13, 19:5, 21:3, 21:8.) Such facts are sprinkled throughout the documents for which sealing is sought.

Plaintiff also offers no explanation—other than the agreement of the parties—for the need to seal almost all of that he seeks to seal. For example, without some explanation from Plaintiff, the court cannot discern the need to seal any of the information in the form complaint other than perhaps paragraph 2. As to paragraph 2, a narrowly tailored sealing order (assuming the court’s speculation about what might be confidential therein) would eliminate only the amounts claimed.

The same is true of every other document Plaintiff seeks to seal. The court cannot discern the need to seal entire pages (or the majority of pages) of the Memo. (See, e.g., pages 9, 10, 11, 12 and 17.) Plaintiff has provided no justification—again, other than the agreement of the parties—for sealing other material in the Memo. (See, e.g., 14:17-19, 15:26-28, 16:10-12, 16:16-26, 18:13 and 19:6-16.) The court also finds the purported need to seal mere statements of the law is not a narrowly tailored sealing request. (See, e.g., 17:9-22, 19:8-9 and 19:9-12.)[3]

Given Plaintiff’s broad request to seal documents, his inconsistent approach with facts he seeks to seal, the lack of specific evidence submitted by Plaintiff to support a sealing order, the court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request to seal.

The motion is denied. Pursuant to CRC, Rule 2.551, subdivision (d), Plaintiff shall advise the court whether the “lodged record is to be filed unsealed” within 10 days of this order. Failure to do so will result in all of the lodged documents being returned to Plaintiff without having been filed.

Based on the court’s denial of Plaintiff’s sealing application, the court cannot reach the merits of the request for an attachment order until after Plaintiff decides what evidence to provide to the court to support his application. Plaintiff has 10 days to make such a decision. The court cannot hear and consider Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment until after Plaintiff has advised the court of how he wishes to proceed so the court can determine what evidence is before it to support the application for a writ of attachment.

Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment is continued to January 20, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.

[1] The period of confidentiality by statute concludes in two days, on December 18, 2022.

[2] In fact, Plaintiff attests he “understand[s]” the agreement contains “confidential proprietary information belonging to Defendant.” (Chandler Decl., ¶ 3.) The statement itself reveals foundation is lacking.

[3] As noted, the remaining documents for which sealing is sought suffer from the same issues. The Declaration of Eric M. George reveals the estimated attorney’s fees are $50,000 despite Plaintiff having requested to seal that amount in other documents. (Compare George Decl. at ¶ 17 with Memo at 3:7.) Without explanation from Plaintiff—again, other than the agreement of the parties—the court cannot discern why much of the information in Mr. George’s declaration (all of pages 3, 4 and 5) would constitute confidential, private information. Plaintiff’s declaration, nearly the entirety of which is sought to be sealed, is similar. Certainly, there is information in Plaintiff’s declaration of a financial nature which may be private and confidential. Nonetheless, the limited financial information (without further explanation) does not support the broad sealing order sought. Finally, the Table of Exhibits with the wholesale removal of exhibits is inconsistent with a narrowly tailored sealing order.