Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV00929, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV00929 Hearing Date: October 17, 2024 Dept: 34
Rebeka Rodriguez v. Hanover Products Co. (24STCV00929)
1. Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is
GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez’ Motion to Seal is
GRANTED.
Background
On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Hanove Products Co.
(“Defendant”) alleging a cause of action for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Settlement.
On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion
to Enforce Settlement and Motion to Seal. Oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions
have not been filed.
1. Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez’ Motion to
Enforce Settlement
A.
Legal
Standard
“If
parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties
outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement
of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment
pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court
may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until
performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6,
subd. (a).)
“Section
664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a
settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prod.,
Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) In deciding motions made
under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a
valid and binding settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)
B.
Discussion
Plaintiff
moves the court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in
accordance with the agreed upon settlement terms. (Motion, 7:21-22.)
Plaintiff
contends that on May 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, Scott J. Ferrell
(“Ferrell”), received an email from Defendant’s counsel, Dan Frank, inviting
Ferrell to send Frank a settlement demand. (Id., 8:17-18; Ferrell Decl.,
¶ 4, Exh. 1.) That same day Ferrell emailed Frank information regarding
Plaintiff’s cause of action and a written settlement demand. (Id.,
8:20-21; Ferrell Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 2.) Ferrell’s email stated in relevant part:
3. Within 30 days of executing a
settlement agreement, Defendant will pay plaintiff a total of $[] inclusive of
statutory penalties, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs; and
4. The agreement will be
memorialized in a settlement agreement that contains additional terms
consistent with this term sheet, including confidentiality and mutual releases.
(Id., at 8; Ferrell
Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 2.)
As
such, Plaintiff argues that Ferrell referred to Plaintiff’s settlement demand
as a “term sheet” and noted that the additional terms contemplated by Plaintiff
would include a confidentiality provision and mutual releases. (Id.)
Plaintiff contends that on May 28, 2024, Frank emailed Ferrell a counteroffer
to settle the action for $[] “under the terms as you described them,” which was
in reference to Ferrell’s “term sheet” and additional terms. (Id., at 9;
Ferrell Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 2.) That same day, Ferrell emailed Frank rejecting his
counteroffer by stating that Plaintiff’s “last, best and final” settlement
offer “is $[] if promptly agreed upon “on standard terms.” (Id., at 9;
Ferrell Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, Exh. 2.) In response, Frank emailed Ferrell stating
“[o]k, we agree in principle to that amount[.]” (Id.) Plaintiff then
contends that Roger Borg (“Borg”) was “looped in” to provide Frank with a draft
of the settlement agreement and to help finalize it. (Ferrell Decl. ¶ 10, Exh.
2; Borg Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff contends that Borg emailed Frank a draft
of a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims requesting that
Frank forward any suggested revisions. (Borg Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff
argues that Borg followed up with Frank multiple times regarding their
settlement after Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on June 27, 2024.
(Motion, 10:3-20.) On September 15, 2024, Frank emailed Borg stating: “We are
not going to settle. Your case has no merit[.]” (Borg Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 2.)
Plaintiff
argues that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement since
parties agreed on all material terms of the settlement with the term sheet
Ferrell emailed Frank. (Motion, 12:16-28.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that
Defendant’s agreement to the settlement amount “in principle” in Frank’s email
on May 28, 2024, is sufficient to enforce the settlement and acts as a
signature. (Id., 15:5-23; 17:19-26.)
No
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion has been filed.
It
is undisputed that Defendant assented to Plaintiff's term sheet and settlement
demand as seen on Frank’s email on May 28, 2024. Furthermore, Defendant did not
dispute Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement filed with the court on June 27, 2024,
nor did Defendant oppose Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement terms.
Frank’s email stating that Defendant will not settle on September 15, 2024, has
no impact on the clear acceptance of the settlement terms on May 28. As such, the
court determines that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.
The court will enter judgment pursuant to the agreed upon settlement terms.
The
motion is granted.
2. Plaintiff
Rebeka Rodriguez’ Motion to Seal
A.
Legal
Standard
A party that requests that a record or portion of a record be
filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing it.
The motion must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and a declaration
containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
2.551(b)(1); Savaglio v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th
588, 597–601.) All parties that have appeared in the case must be served with a
copy of the motion or application. Unless the judge orders otherwise, a party
that already possesses copies of the records to be sealed must be served with a
complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).)
The moving party must
lodge the record with the court in a separate envelope when the motion or
application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or it has been
lodged previously. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4) and (d).) The lodged
record is conditionally under seal pending the judge's determination of the
motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)
Pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d), a judge may order that a record be filed under
seal only if the judge expressly finds facts that establish all the following:
(1) There
exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the
record.
(2) The
overriding interest supports sealing the record.
(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).)
In ruling on a motion to
seal, the court must weigh the competing interests and concerns. This process
necessitates (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to
protection from public disclosure, (2) identifying the nature of the harm
threatened by disclosure, and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing
considerations. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879,
894.) Therefore, to prevail on his or her motion, the moving party must present
a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and the specific
reasons for withholding them. (Id. at p. 904.)
The California Supreme
Court has held that the First Amendment provides “a right of access to ordinary
civil trial and proceedings.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super. Ct.
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212.) The court further noted its belief that “the
public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the
performance of its public judicial system.” (Id. at 1210.) There is a
presumption of openness in civil court proceedings. (Id. at 1217.) This
presumption may apply to seemingly private proceedings. (Burkle v. Burkle
(2006) 135 Cal. App.4th 1045, 1052 (divorce proceedings).) Therefore, it is up
to this Court to determine if that presumption has been overcome.
Courts must find
compelling reasons, prejudice absent sealing and the lack of less-restrictive
means, before ordering filed documents sealed. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1246; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super.
Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209 n. 25; Champion v. Super. Ct.
(1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 777, 787.) A compelling reason could include to protect
confidential trade secrets, which “have been recognized as a constitutionally
protected intangible property interest.” (DVD Copy Control Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 878, internal citations omitted.)
A proposed sealing must
be narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, such as by sealing
portions of pleadings or redacting text. (In re Marriage of Burkle
(2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052, 1070.) An application to seal must be
accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify sealing.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)
A “contractual obligation
not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest” is sufficient to justify
sealing the requested documents so long as the moving party establishes that
disclosure of the information will result in substantial prejudice. (Universal
City Studios, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1283–84.)
B.
Discussion
Plaintiff
moves the court to seal portions of (1) Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement;
(2) Declaration of Scott J. Ferrell; (3) Exhibit 2 to Scott J. Ferrell’s
declaration; and (4) Exhibit 1 of the Declaration of Roger E. Borg as they
contain either the amount that Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff pursuant to
their settlement agreement or a settlement counteroffer proposed by Defendant during
the settlement negotiations. (Motion, 2:10-16.) Additionally, Plaintiff
contends that the parties agreed that the settlement would include a
confidentiality provision making it reasonable to treat the settlement amount
as under seal. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff
argues that there is an overriding interest to protect the confidential
information of the parties justifying the seal of the settlement amount and
settlement counteroffers. (Id., 2:17-20; Ferrell Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)
Plaintiff also argues that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored as
Plaintiff will file a redacted, public copy of Plaintiff’s memorandum and
exhibits. (Id., 2:21-25; Ferrell Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff contends that
there are no least restrictive means available. (Id.)
No
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion has been filed.
Regarding the settlement amount, settlement counteroffers, and the
portions of the Motion to Enforce Settlement and declarations that discuss
them, the court finds: (1) that there is an overriding interest that overcomes
the right of public access to the record; (2) that the overriding interest
supports sealing the record; (3) that a substantial probability exists that the
overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) that
the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and (5) that no less restrictive
means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
The motion is granted.
Conclusion
1. Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is
GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff Rebeka
Rodriguez’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED.