Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 23STCP00843, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP00843 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 86
ATLAS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC. v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Case No. 23STCP00843
Hearing Date: March
6, 2024
[Tentative] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL IN PART
Real Party in
Interest, Clothilde v. Hewlett, Commissioner of the Department of Financial
Protection and Innovation (DFPI), brings this second motion to seal. On October
18, 2023, the court ruled on Hewlett’s first motion to seal in this matter.
To be clear, this
motion concerns only whether documents, or portions thereof, should be sealed
from public view. This order does not affect the ultimate admissibility of any
such documents, or portions thereof, for purposes of this writ proceeding.
Hewlett advises the
court’s prior order of October 18, 2023 contains a typographical error. The
court agrees. The court intended to seal all emails in Exhibit H. The sentence
immediately preceding “Enforcement Inquiries from VCDA (March 18, 2020) [RJN
Exhibit I]” on page 7 of 9 in the October 18, 2023 order stating:
“Accordingly, the court finds Hewlett met her burden under CRC, Rule 2.550 to
seal all emails in Exhibit G except the initial email from Chief Deputy
District Attorney Chuck Hughes[]” shall be replaced with ““Accordingly, the
court finds Hewlett met her burden under CRC, Rule 2.550 to seal all emails in
Exhibit H.”
Accordingly, Exhibit
H of Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice filed July 28, 2023 is sealed
from public view. The typographical error is thereby corrected.
In addition, from
that same Request for Judicial Notice filed July 28, 2023, the court orders
sealed from public view Exhibit J pages 5 and 10 of the enforcement referral to
include redactions to the names identified by initials as set forth in
Hewlett’s motion. The redactions are to specific names only. (It appears this
particular request of the court is new. See Motion to Seal filed August 14,
2023 6:25-7:15.)
Hewlett also seeks to
seal portions of documents contained in Petitioner’s Request for Judicial
Notice filed October 6, 2023.
As to Exhibit C,
portions of pages 5 and 10 of the enforcement referral (as discussed in
connection with Exhibit J earlier) is sealed from public view. This order is
consistent with the order for Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice filed
July 18, 2023. As to the last word that links to other documents, the request
is denied. The court notes the link appears to be dead; there is no connect to
any document through the hyperlink through the court’s electronic filing
system. In any event, the word “here” does not impart any information.
As to Exhibit D, the
motion is granted. The email communications reflect internal attorney-client
communications.
As to Exhibits E and
F, the court finds Hewlett has provided insufficient justification to seal the
information from public view. The court agrees with Petitioner. The
language—set forth in Petitioner’s opposition despite Hewlett’s pending request
to seal it—does not reflect the details of any settlement negotiations. While
Hewlett provides a number of reasons she believes the sentences should be
sealed from public view, none are sufficiently explained to meet her burden on
this motion. That Petitioner may have flipped his position having previously
stipulated that the sentences could be sealed is of no consequence here.
Finally, it appears the information was communicated to those “to whom
disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or
the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted . . . .”
(Evid. Code, § 952.)
As previously
ordered, within 10 days, Petitioner shall prepare and file two amended requests
for judicial notice for filing. The amended requests should reflect the court’s
orders herein. The amended requests shall be subject to public view.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 6, 2024 ________________________________
Hon. Mitchell Beckloff
Judge of the Superior Court