Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV01128, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

This action is brought by plaintiff Jane DOE K.C. 1 and plaintiff Jane Doe A.H. 2, who allege that they are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual battery, assault, molestation and abuse at the hands of defendant (originally sued as defendant Doe 1) Gloria de Los Angeles Trevino Ruiz aka Gloria Trevi, and defendant (originally sued as defendant Doe 2) Sergio Gustavo Andrade Sanchez aka Sergio Andrade.

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, and 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.

Defendant Maria Raquenel Portillo Jimenez (“Portillo” in Cross-Complaint, “Raquenel” in motion), as cross-complainant, has filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, which identifies cross-defendants as Andrade Sanchez, with the remaining cross-defendants identified by Doe and Roe designations.

The FACC alleges that cross-complainant Portillo is a public figure, with over 30 years of experience in the entertainment industry, and that cross-defendant Andrade is a well-known successful music producer, and now convicted sex offender in his native Mexico, and that Andrade married cross-complainant when she was fifteen years old, from 1980 to 1990, and divorced cross-complainant to marry cross-defendant Jane Doe AH 2 (AH) from 1990 to 1992, when cross-defendant was fifteen years old. The FACC alleges that Andrade married AH with the parental consent of cross-defendant’s mother, cross-defendant Roe JP 1, and that AH’s uncle, cross-defendant Roe JP 2, and her aunt, cross-defendant Roe SP 3, were witnesses to the marriage. It is also alleged that the parents of cross-defendant Jane Doe KC 1(KC), cross-defendants Roe JC 4 and Roe S 5, consented to KC living with Andrade, including allowing her to travel abroad to the U.S. with him.

The FACC alleges that in 2021, cross-defendant AH contacted cross-complainant and mentioned her plans to pursue a lawsuit against Andrade and Trevi for abuse of a minor. It is alleged that cross-complainant and AH met in person, and AH unexpectedly brought along two attorneys, and later introduced cross-complainant to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent. The FACC alleges that cross-complainant found out that the purpose of the meeting was for cross-complainant to be asked to be a named plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit as being the first victim of Andrade and the one who endured the longest. Cross-complainant told them she would think about it and afterward AH became insistent, along with the FBI agent, via phone calls and messages, that cross-complainant become a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On December 30, 2022, cross-defendants KC and AH filed the underlying lawsuit for damages against Trevi, cross-defendant Andrade and cross-complainant for sexual battery, sexual assault and violation of Penal Code section 647.6, alleging that they are the survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual battery, assault and molestation.

In February of 2023, cross-complainant’s co-producers invited AH to be a guest on the podcast. In March of 2023, cross-complainant was served and found out for the first time about the lawsuit against her and her co-defendants. In April of 2023, the podcast was launched and in the first week ranked number one in Mexico and the U.S. and number four worldwide within its category. Also in April of 2023, AH stated publicly that she would like to be a guest on the podcast. In July of 2023, cross-complainant sent a message to AH to let her know about cross-complainant’s sadness at being involved in the lawsuit and to request AH consider removing cross-complainant from the lawsuit, since cross-complainant felt it had been a retaliatory move by AH due to cross-complainant having declined to be involved as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The FACC alleges that if plaintiffs sustained injuries as alleged in their complaint, it was a direct result of the negligent and intentional acts of cross-defendants, and in the event cross-complainant is held liable to plaintiffs, she is entitled to equitable indemnification and equitable contribution from cross-defendants.

The FACC also alleges that the lawsuit filed by defendants KC and AH, alleging that cross-complainant committed sexual battery of a minor, sexual assault of a minor, and molested a minor, and all statements pertaining to cross-complainant, are false, that the complaint is libelous on its face, that the complaint has been read or seen by family members, the public and the media, and that as a result cross-complainant has suffered loss of her reputation, shame, mortification, and injury to her feelings, all to her damage.

It is also alleged that the cross-defendants filed the lawsuit sharing false stories about cross-complainant with the intent of portraying her as a criminal, and of destroying cross-complainant’s reputation worldwide, and as a result of the lawsuit and its publication to media outlets worldwide, cross-complainant has been uninvited from events concerning the podcast, guests have cancelled, conflict has been caused with her co-producers, cross-complainant has been harassed by third parties and threatened, and cross-complainant’s reputation has been adversely affected. The FACC also alleges that due to the allegations of the lawsuit, cross-complainant has suffered severe emotional and physical distress, including loss of sleep, stress and anxiety, difficult focusing, and social isolation.

On December 22, 2023, the court heard a special motion to strike the FACC brought by plaintiffs and cross-defendants Jane Doe K.C. 1 and Jane Doe A.H. 2, which was granted, with the court alternatively granting judgment on the pleadings as to the moving parties, and the FACC was dismissed with prejudice as to cross-defendants Jane Doe K.C. 1 and Jane Doe A.H. 2. The FACC remails pending as against the other cross-defendants.

Plaintiffs bring their motion on the ground their motion to proceed using pseudonyms and the accompanying exhibits contain information that could be used to identify plaintiffs who are currently proceeding anonymously. Plaintiffs argue that their anonymity would be compromised if their motion and exhibits sought to be sealed were disclosed in the court’s public files, and anticipate that the motion to seal will be unopposed.

(b) (1) 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 of points and authorities and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.

(2) A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties who have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already possesses copies of the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.”

The rules for sealing records “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” The rules “do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.” CRC Rule 2.550(a)(3); NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209 n. 25.

With respect to the existence of an overriding interest, the Legislative Comment to CRC Rule 2.550 notes that the Rule is a codification of the standards set forth in the California Supreme Court opinion in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178. The comment notes that “NBC Subsidiary provides examples of various interests that courts have acknowledged may constitute ‘overriding interests’. (See id., at p. 1222, fn. 46).”

“As observed, ante, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d at page 798, 980 P.2d at page 355, the court in Press–Enterprise II, supra, 478 U.S. 1, 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1, implied that an accused's interest in a fair trial constitutes an “overriding interest” supporting closure. We assume that the high court similarly would find that a civil litigant's right to a fair trial also constitutes an overriding interest supporting closure.

Courts have acknowledged various other overriding interests. (Globe, supra, 457 U.S. 596, 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 [protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment]; accord, Press–Enterprise II, supra, 478 U.S. 1, 9, fn. 2, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1; Press–Enterprise I, supra, 464 U.S. 501, 512, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 [privacy interests of a prospective juror during individual voir dire]; Rovinsky, supra, 722 F.2d 197, 200 [protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to testify]; Publicker, supra, 733 F.2d 1059, 1073 [protection of trade secrets, protection of information within the attorney-client privilege, and enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose]; Comment, The First Amendment Right of Access to Civil Trials After Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 51 U. Chi. L.Rev. at pp. 299–310 [safeguarding national security, ensuring the anonymity of juvenile offenders in juvenile court]; Fenner & Koley, supra, 16 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.Rev. at pp. 440–444 [ensuring the fair administration of justice, and preservation of confidential investigative information].)

Quite apart from questions relating to closure based upon the content of information, it is recognized that courtroom access may be denied or regulated by reasonable “time, place, and manner restrictions” in order to maintain dignity and decorum, or when courtroom capacity precludes entry by every person who wishes to attend. (Richmond Newspapers, supra, 448 U.S. 555, 581, fn. 18, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (lead opn.); Fenner & Koley, supra, 16 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.Rev. at pp. 444–446.)”

In this case the allegations involve sexual abuse occurring when plaintiffs were minors, and the court is in the process of determining whether under the circumstances plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed anonymously. If the court were to require the material to be filed in the public record without a sealing order and were to ultimately determine that plaintiffs are entitled to proceed as anonymous Doe defendants, such anonymity would already have been compromised. The interest in preserving that anonymity until the determination is made overrides the need for immediate public disclosure in these circumstances.

The documents which are proposed to be filed with redactions appear to be narrowly tailored, and this order will be made without prejudice to the court ultimately making an order revoking the sealing order if plaintiffs are denied permission to proceed anonymously.

(B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.”

The motions rely on federal law pursuant to which it is held: “District courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.’ ”

While the moving parties do not cite any statutory authority providing procedures for this state court to consider amicus briefs, the replies cite to In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 (superseded by Constitutional Amendment on other grounds, as stated in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) 570 U.S. 693), in which the California Supreme Court noted:

“the superior court, in exercising its traditional broad discretion over the conduct of pending litigation, retained the authority to determine the manner and extent of these entities' participation as amici curiae that would be of most assistance to the court. As we observed in Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 405, footnote 14, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745: “Amicus curiae presentations assist the court by broadening its perspective on the issues raised by the parties. Among other services, they facilitate informed judicial consideration of a wide variety of information and points of view that may bear on important legal questions.”

In this regard we note that in the present proceeding, this court has received 45 extensively researched and well-written amicus curiae briefs, some of which have been filed on behalf of many of California's largest cities, numerous members of the state Legislature, and scores of organizations, including a variety of commercial, religious, and mental health groups, bar associations, and law professors. The religious groups, like some of the others, are divided in their support of the respective parties in this proceeding. The court has benefited from the considerable assistance provided by these amicus curiae briefs in analyzing the significant issues presented by this case.”

It accordingly is clear that this court has discretion concerning its reliance on amicus curiae input, and it is not unreasonable for the state court to apply analogous legal reasoning applied by the federal district courts in comparable situations.

The moving party Stand With Survivors is a national network of survivors and advocates who support survivors of sexual violence, particularly those involved in high-profile sexual violence trials. Moving party Voices in Action is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing safety in the entertainment industry, supporting survivors of sexual assault within the industry, and pursuing accountability of perpetrators of sexual assault. These parties argue that their experience in these capacities have provided them with a deep understanding of the fear of reporting sexual assault, particularly in connection with a popular figure in the entertainment industry. The parties argue that their experience and expertise would be valuable to the court in this circumstance, and that their briefs set forth important policy considerations in connection with plaintiffs’ motion.

The briefs are in fact quite brief, only three pages and five pages, and purport to make arguments based on the specialized knowledge and experience of the respective organizations. Hence, the entities possess unique information or perspective which could be of benefit to the court.

Defendant has filed an omnibus opposition to both motions, arguing that plaintiffs here are well represented by multiple law firms and it is not necessary or appropriate for every outside organization who has an opinion to bombard this court and the parties with duplicative briefing. Defendant argues that the third parties have no stake in the outcome and no material knowledge of the specific facts of the case, and that the proposed briefs are worthless.

To the extent defendant believes the briefs are ill supported or duplicative, defendant can point this out in responsive briefing. To the extent defendant is concerned that multiple organizations or individuals will be weighing in on the subject motion, the court is entertaining only two motions, by two organizations, and it does not appear reasonably anticipated that any further briefs will be sought to be filed. If additional third parties intend to participate, they have clearly not timely done so, and would, in any case, be subject to the analysis applied above.

The opposition then proceeds to essentially argue the merits of plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that defendant’s position that plaintiffs’ names should be subject to disclosure in this case is not affected by the proposed amici’s “generic arguments” to the contrary. This response appears to underscore that there is no articulated prejudice to defendant from permitting the briefs to be filed and considered by the court, especially given that the court will also fully consider any responsive briefing defendant chooses to file in response to the briefs.

Based on the court’s rulings permitting the filing of additional briefing in this matter for the court’s consideration in determining the merits of the motion, the hearing on the motion will be continued to a date sufficiently far in the future to permit the filing of those briefs and appropriate responsive briefing.

The court also notes that the motion does not appear to be appropriately fully before the court, as opposition and reply papers have been filed conditionally under seal without sealing orders. The court notes that a motion to seal the opposition papers has been noticed for hearing on March 8, 2024. The court will expect during the period this matter is continued that any parties relying on documents sought to be considered under seal obtain in advance appropriate court orders permitting the documents to be filed under seal, or such documents will not be considered by the court.

The Court will permit the filing under seal of the subject motion and exhibits with the redaction/sealing of the identities and identifying information of parties currently proceeding under Doe designations, until such time as the Court has made a determination concerning whether the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue this action anonymously.

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcome the right of public access to the records, namely, the interest of plaintiffs in protecting their potential right to proceed anonymously in this action in protection of their privacy in making claims of sexual abuse as minors, which anonymity could be jeopardized by public disclosure of names and other identifying information.

The brief filed on December 20, 2023 is ordered stricken by the Court, and a separate copy of the Brief of Caroline Heldman, Ph.D., Stand with Survivors as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs is ordered to be filed with the Court and served on all parties by electronic service no later than 4 pm this date.

Amicus Curiae is ordered to file with the court a separate copy of the document attached to the motion as Exhibit A, the Brief of Voices in Action as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonyms, and to serve the brief on all parties by electronic service no later than 4 pm this date.

Motion for Order for Plaintiffs to Proceed Using Pseudonyms is CONTINUED April 5, 2024 [30 days, after hearing date on motion to seal opposition papers on March 8, 2024] to permit the filing and service of the briefs and responsive briefs specified above. The Court will also expect that any party seeking to have the Court consider documents filed conditionally or otherwise under seal will obtain in advance of the continued hearing date appropriate orders permitting such documents to be filed under seal.

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.