TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 6

Date: 10/13/2023

Case No: 22 GDCV01128 Trial Date: None Set 

Case Name: Jane Doe K.C. 1, et al. v. Defendant Doe 1, et al. 

APPEARANCE PRO HAC VICE

MOTION TO SEAL

Pro Hac Vice 

Moving Party: Caroline Whitlock  

Responding Parties: No Opposition 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Permission to appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs Jane Doe K.C. 1 and Jane Doe A.H. 2 

CONDITIONS:

Association with CA attorney (name, address, phone #)   Yes 

    Verified declaration:   Yes  

Service on State Bar at San Francisco office:  Yes (¶ 9, Ex. 2)     

Fee paid to State Bar: Yes (¶ 9, Ex. 2)   

Good standing and not currently suspended/disbarred:    (App. ¶ 5)

Non-California residence and office:    Yes 

Admitted to practice in the following courts and the date: 

Titles of court, case number and cause in which moving party has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state in the last two years, dates and whether motion granted or not:

Has not filed an application for pro hac vice admission in California during the last two years. 

(App. 7) 

Declaration of moving party:   Application verified 

ANALYSIS:

 

The paperwork is in order, and the application is granted. 

Motion to Seal

Moving Party:  Defendant and Cross-Complainant Maria Raquenel Portilla Jimenez aka Mary Boquitas and Mary Raquenel

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Jane Doe K.C. 1 and Jane Doe A.H. 2

(Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, indicating they do not oppose the motion) 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

The operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint, alleges that  beginning when plaintiff Jane Doe K.C. 1 was a 15-year-old child, and plaintiff Jane Doe A.H. 2 was a 13-year-old child, defendants used their role, status and power as a well-known and successful Mexican pop star and a famous producer to gain access to, groom, manipulate, and exploit plaintiffs and coerce sexual contact with them over a course of years, much of it occurring in the State of California.  The complaint alleges that as a result of the sexual harassment, abuse and assault, plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional, physical and psychological distress. 

On July 28, 2023, the court heard various motions in this matter, including a motion to strike the complaint, and for an order unsealing the names or requiring the identification of plaintiffs by name in the court’s public file. The motion to strike was granted in part, but the order was stayed.  Plaintiffs were ordered to file a noticed motion seeking an order to permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, addressing the appropriate standards as set forth in Department of Fair Housing v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105.  

The court of appeal in Department of Fair Housing set forth the proper procedure to be followed:

“Procedurally, because a hearing is required, a party who wants to proceed anonymously will file the initial complaint or petition conditionally under a pseudonym and then move for an order granting permission to proceed that way. If the request is granted, the initial pleading can remain. If pseudonym use is denied, the pleading must be amended to state the party's true name.”

Department of Fair Housing, at 111, n. 1. 

A motion to permit plaintiffs to proceed using pseudonyms is now scheduled for hearing on January 12, 2024. 

The file also shows that on September 9, 2023, after the filing of this motion on August 8, 2023, defendant Maria Raquenel Portillo Jimenez (Portillo), as cross-complainant, filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, which identifies cross-defendants as Andrade Sanchez, with the remaining cross-defendants identified by Doe and Roe designations.   

ANALYSIS:

The filing of the First Amended Cross-Complaint renders the motion to seal moot. 

Defendant and cross-complainant Portillo brings this motion to seal, indicating it is brought out of deference to the current posture of the litigation, where plaintiffs are proceeding anonymously as “Jane Does,” and are seeking to obtain an order permitting them to do so.  As noted above, there has not yet been an order obtained concerning whether plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed anonymously or will be required to disclose their identities in the public record of the court files.  

Cross-complainant indicates that the documents affiliated with the cross-complaint, a Request for Judicial Notice, the cross-complaint, summons, demand for jury trial and notice of posting jury fees all refer to plaintiffs and cross-defendants by name, and also necessarily contain other information that could be used to identify the Jane Does.  A review of the FACC on file shows that the Roe cross-defendants are the mothers and fathers of the Doe parties, and that disclosure of their sur-names and identifying information would likely provide information which would jeopardize the anonymous status of the plaintiffs, if they are ultimately permitted to proceed anonymously. 

It appears that the situation with the cross-complaint has been addressed without the need for a sealing order, by the filing of the FACC which uses the Doe and Roe designations.  As suggested in Department of Fair Housing, above, if plaintiffs are ultimately not permitted to proceed anonymously, cross-complainant would be permitted leave to amend the cross-complaint to name the parties.

The demand for jury trial filed on August 7, 2023, which included redactions, has similarly been superseded by the filing on September 1, 2023 of a demand for jury trial which does not include redactions or identifying information, but also uses the Doe and Roe designations.   The motion to seal accordingly is taken off calendar as moot.  The demand for jury trial filed on August 7, 2023 is ordered stricken.    

The Request for Judicial Notice filed on August 7, 2023, with various redactions, does not appear to be relevant to any currently pending motion filed by cross-complainant.  The Request for Judicial Notice accordingly is ordered stricken.  There will be no need for a sealing order.  

The summons referred to by cross-complainant, filed on August 7, 2023, also includes redacted material concerning the identity of some of the cross-defendants.  The summons is ordered stricken, without prejudice to cross-complainant filing a summons without redaction and without identifying information not included as was successfully done in the First Amended Cross-Complaint and the amended Demand for Jury Trial.  

The court does not locate in the file a notice of posting jury fees, so such a document is not addressed. 

The court notes that it has previously returned to the cross-complainant all documents lodged conditionally under seal.  

 

RULING:

UNOPPOSED Supplemental Verified Application of Caroline Whitlock for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.  The Court finds that the verified application complies with all requirements of CRC Rule 9.40 and that the applicant has provided sufficient proof of service on the State Bar and payment of the requisite fee. 

UNOPPOSED Motion to Seal Judicial Notice, Cross-Complaint, Summons of Cross-Complaint, Demand for Jury is DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Court notes the filing of a First Amended Cross-Complaint on September 1, 2023, which names the Cross-Defendants sought by the motion to be identified in a document under seal. The FACC supersedes the original Cross-Complaint, so the original Cross-Complaint is no longer the operative pleading. 

Cross-Complaint filed on August 7, 2023 is stricken. 

Motion as to other documents filed conditionally under seal is DENIED.  

As to the Demand for Jury Trial, cross-complainant has filed a second Demand for Jury Trial on September 1, 2023, rendering the motion as to the Demand for Jury Trial MOOT.  

The Demand for Jury Trial filed on August 7, 2023 is stricken. 

As to the Request for Judicial Notice, the motion is DENIED, as the document appears irrelevant to any currently pending motion filed by cross-complainant.  

Defendant Maria Raquenal Portillo Jimenez aka Mary Boquitas and Mary Raquenel’s Request for Judicial Notice filed on August 7, 2023 is stricken.

As to the summons filed on August 7, 2023 with redactions, the document is stricken in its entirety, without prejudice to cross-complainant filing a new summons with identifying information not included as was successfully done in the First Amended Cross-Complaint.  

  

  DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.