Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 22TRCV00217 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00217, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00217 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: May 3, 2023¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00217

¿¿

CASE NAME: Financial Services Vehicle Trust, by and through its servicer, BMW Financial Services NA v. Doe A

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Financial Services Vehicle Trust

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant (Doe A)

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None (MSJ Previously Granted)

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Defendant’s Motion to Seal and to be referenced by pseudonym

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff Financial Services Vehicle Trust, by and through its servicer, BMW Financial Services, NA (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Doe A alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Common Count; (3) Claim & Delivery; and (4) Conversion. This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant did not abide by her lease agreement with South Bay BMW for the use of certain personal property described as a 2018 BMW X2 XDR28i motor vehicle, serial no. WBXYJ5C32JEF81336 (“Vehicle”). In the Lease Agreement, Defendant agreed to make 36 monthly base payments of $452.02 each, plus applicable taxes, commencing on January 27, 2019, and monthly thereafter on 27^th day of each consecutive month up until the maturity date on January 27, 2022. Defendant later contended that in the Summer of 2022, she attempted to turn the Vehicle back in or arrange for its to be voluntarily repossessed. Defendant contends that she did not voluntarily consent to the lease and that her signature on the Lease Agreement was procured by duress, undue influence, and coercion by an abusive domestic partner.

Defendant, Doe A, filed a Motion to Seal essentially all records in this case pursuant to the Safe at Home program, CCP section 367.3, back on July 21, 2022, the same day she filed her Answer to the Complaint. At the August 12, 2022 Case Management Conference, the Court acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s opposition filed the day before the CMC hearing but the Court had not read or considered the late-filed opposition. The Court took that earlier motion under submission to consider the opposition, but did mistakenly did not rule upon it. Subsequently, both parties submitted multiple documents and pleadings, and the Court conducted several hearings, none of which mentioned the July 2022 motion to seal. Ultimately the Court entered a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor after hearing the contested motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s current motion filed on March 15, 2023 is broader than the one filed in July of 2022. The current motion does not reference the previous motion to seal. The March 15, 2023 motion was filed without a proof of service, without a hearing date, and without any pre-filing meet and confer detailed. On March 15, 2023, the Court set a hearing on the new motion for May 3, 2023 and mailed notice of the hearing to both sides.

B. Procedural¿¿

On March 15, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Place Documents Under Seal with several related document including a proposed order, a declaration, and a confidential information form. On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Declaration opposing the Motion to Place Documents Under Seal.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

Generally, 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, which must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal Rules of Ct 2.551(b)(1).) A copy of the motion or application to seal must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. (Cal Rules of Ct 2.551(b)(2).) Unless the judge orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted copy of all papers as well as a redacted version. Other parties must be served with only the public redacted version. When a party's attorney, but not the party, has access to the record, only the party's attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version. (Cal Rules of Ct 2.551(b)(2).)

Generally, a record may be filed under seal only if the judge expressly finds facts that establish all the following (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record and supports sealing the record; 2) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 3) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 4) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal Rules of Ct 2.550(d); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1217–1218; Saunders v Superior Court (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th Supp 1, 24, (right of access to judicial records is not absolute and nondisclosure may be appropriate “for compelling countervailing reasons” due to events that tend to undermine individual security, personal liberty, or private property, or that injure the public or the public good)):

Only the specific words of documents that constitute the sensitive material should be sealed or redacted; generally, it is not permissible to seal the entire document. Examples of documents that may include information that may warrant sealing are: (a) Documents containing trade secrets (See In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 300 (dictum); McGuan v. Endovascular Tech., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988—quality control records and complaint handling procedures); (b) Documents containing material protected by a privilege (See Huffy Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co.), supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at 108—attorney-client privilege (dictum)]; and (c) Confidential settlement agreements. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Unity Pictures Corp.) (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283(dictum).)

The Court used the word “generally” in the three preceding paragraphs because there are statutory exceptions for alternative processes of sealing court files and pleadings or parts of them. One exception is the sealing of an entire court file in an unlawful detainer case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.2(a)(2). Another exception is found in Section 367.3, the basis for plaintiff’s motion here. Plaintiff filed the present motion based on her status as a participant in California's Safe at Home Program (the “Safe at Home Program”), which is a state initiative that aims to keep a crime victim's address confidential. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3; Cal. Gov. Code § 6205.) “The Safe At Home program protects crime victims, reproductive health care workers, and public health officials by providing a substitute address that California state and local agencies use for public records. See Cal. Gov't Code § 6207(a); [citation omitted.] Program participants are deemed “protected persons” under the California Code of Civil Procedure, which allows participants to (1) use a pseudonym and redact identifying characteristics when filing court documents, and (2) seek leave to seal public files. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 367.3(b). To be accepted to the program, applicants must submit a sworn statement that he or she ‘is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder or dependent abuse,’ and that he or she ‘fears for his or her safety.’ See Cal. Gov't Code § 6206.” (Del Nero v. Allstate Insurance Company (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2021, No. CV009068AHMAIJX) 2021 WL 3285033, at *1.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a declaration noting that the previous opposition filed in August 2022 argued that the Motion should be denied first because the Motion was requesting to seal documents in this case that had already been filed and are already public records, and second because Defendant herself has filed documents from her family law case using her name, an address, and providing private information as to matters in that family law matter. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Judgment has now been entered in this case, so no additional documents filed in this case will provide information that will be considered as an invasion of privacy. Plaintiff further argues that the type of privacy cited in Defendant’s Motion claims the same rights that every California resident has and therefore does qualify for documents to be sealed as they are not an invasion of privacy; and that the proposed sealing of “all documents” is not narrowly tailored and would apply to documents that raise no right of privacy issues or are “likely to attract media attention” as identified in Plaintiff’s Motion.

Plaintiff’s opposition has considerable merit, but that merit does not, in the Court’s view, warrant denial of the motion. While the law imposes the responsibility to exclude or redact identifying characteristics of the protected person from documents filed with the court on the parties rather than the Court (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.3(b)(3)), and Defendant failed to use her requested pseudonym in subsequent filings, she is a self-represented litigant who actively sought the protection of the law nine months ago that the Court never ruled upon, under a statute the protects her address and provides other protections.

“Because the State of California has determined that Plaintiff “faces some risk or threat when it enrolled [her] in the Safe At Home program,” disclosure of Plaintiff's address “’would undermine that program and put [Plaintiff] at risk of the very harms that [the program] is designed to protect.’” (Del Nero, supra, at *2.) Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to seal the court records that reflect her actual name and/or an address or post office box for Plaintiff, even though done retroactively. The Court recognizes that the Safe at Home Confidential Address Program “does not protect all information related to Plaintiff from the public eye; it protects Plaintiff's address. See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 6205-11.” (Doe v. Law Offices of Winn and Sims (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2021, No. 06-CV-00599-H-AJB) 2021 WL 9917688, at *2.) But an address for plaintiff appears on virtually every document and pleading filed in this case, whether on the caption page of defendant’s filings or on the proof of service of Plaintiff’s filings.

The Court thus GRANTS Defendant Doe A’s request that her party name be replaced with the pseudonym: Doe A. The Court also GRANTS Doe A’s motion to seal the entire court file. It would be an administrative nightmare for the court clerical staff to print out, hand-redact the address and defendant’s actual name from each document in the court file, and then re-scan the redacted version into the court’s digital file so that only the redacted version would be available for public view. Balancing the Defendant’s Safer at Home protections from an abusive domestic partner against the public interest in having this single-defendant case being an ongoing publicly available record, and balancing the administrative obstacles in fashioning a narrower manner of protecting the plaintiff’s privacy interest, the Court determines that good cause has been shown the seal the court file in its entirety, pending any further order of the Court to unseal a particular record or more than one record. Future filings in this case shall bear the following notation at the top of the first page: “FILED UNDER SEAL PER COURT ORDER DATED MAY 3, 2023.” Defendant shall be referenced in future filings in this case as “Doe A.” The Court further orders that the digital name of this matter will be updated when a hearing is scheduled on the court’s publicly viewable website to reflect the name of the Defendant as “Doe A,” not the name by which she was identified in this suit.