Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV01192, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV01192    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff and cross-defendant KBS Holdco, LLC, d/b/a Regency Outdoor Advertising, and defendant and cross-complainant Thomas M. Carlson

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

Motion to Seal

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff and cross-defendant KBS Holdco, LLC, d/b/a Regency Outdoor Advertising (“Plaintiff”), together with defendant and cross-complainant Thomas M. Carlson (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) move the court for an order sealing portions of Defendant’s Cross-Complaint.  Specifically, the Parties seek the seal the information set forth on the following pages of the Cross-Complaint: (1) page 2, lines 8-11; (2) page 2, lines 13-16; (3) page 2, lines 17-24; (4) page 3, lines 2-4; (5) page 3, lines 8-11; (6) page 5, lines 12-14; (7) page 5, lines 15-17; (8) page 5, lines 18-20; (9) page 6, lines 1-2; (10) page 6, lines 4-7; (11) page 6, lines 9-14; (12) page 7, lines 13-15; (13) page 7, lines 16-17; and (14) page 8, lines 21-23.   (Angioni Decl., Ex. A [proposed redacted Cross-Complaint].)

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).)¿ If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “if it expressly finds facts that establish: (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, subd. (d).)¿ 

The court notes that the Parties’ settlement agreement might include a provision that does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1001.

“[A] provision within a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts the disclosure of factual information related to a claim filed in a civil action or a complaint filed in an administrative action, regarding any of the following, is prohibited: [¶¶] (3) An act of workplace harassment or discrimination . . . as described in subdivisions (a), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of Section 12940 of the Government Code.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1001, subd. (a)(3).)  In such a civil matter, “a court shall not enter, by stipulation or otherwise, an order that restricts the disclosure of information in a manner that conflicts with subdivision (a).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1001, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is a civil action alleging acts of workplace harassment or discrimination as described in Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (a) and (j).  (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 33 [incorporating all allegations in the second cause of action], 35-36.)  In their moving papers and supporting declarations, the Parties have indicated that their settlement agreement appears to include a term that restricts the disclosure of the factual information related to Defendant’s workplace harassment or discrimination claims by requiring the Parties to jointly file a motion to seal the portions of the Cross-Complaint describing those claims.  (Angioni Decl., ¶ 3; Sylla Decl., ¶ 4; Mot., p. 5:12-15 [“as part of the settlement, the Parties jointly agreed to seek to redact allegations in the Cross-Complaint that [Plaintiff] contends damages Plaintiff’s (and its owners and employees’) character, business, future business opportunities, and professional reputation”].)

Thus, it appears that the Parties’ settlement agreement might include a provision that does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1001, subdivision (a).  If that is the case, the court shall not enter an order, in ruling on the Parties’ motion to seal or otherwise, that will restrict the disclosure of factual information related to Defendant’s claims for workplace harassment and discrimination alleged in the Cross-Complaint, pursuant to the Parties’ settlement agreement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1001, subd. (b).)

The Parties did not address this statute in their motion.  The court therefore exercises its discretion to continue the hearing on the Parties’ motion to seal in order to give the Parties an opportunity to file a supplemental brief that addresses the effect of Code of Civil Procedure section 1001 on their motion.

ORDER

            The court orders that the hearing on plaintiff and cross-defendant KBS Holdco, LLC, d/b/a Regency Outdoor Advertising and defendant and cross-complainant Thomas M. Carlson’s motion to seal is continued to April 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders that plaintiff and cross-defendant KBS Holdco, LLC, d/b/a Regency Outdoor Advertising, and defendant and cross-complainant Thomas M. Carlson may file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages in length, that addresses the effect of Code of Civil Procedure section 1001 on the parties’ motion to seal, no later than April 5, 2024.

            The court orders plaintiff and cross-defendant KBS Holdco, LLC, d/b/a Regency Outdoor Advertising to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 7, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court