Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 17, 2023

08/18/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL MCMILLAN VS DOE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant John Doe's Motion to Place Documents Under Seal Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.3 is GRANTED.

'Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.' (Cal. R. Court, rule 2.550(c).) Statutory authority expressly authorizes a Safer at Home participant to keep his or her name and identifying information confidential in litigation. (Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3(b)(1).) Identifying information includes 'online identifiers' such as Uniform Resource Locators ('URLs').

The court had some difficulty parsing what exactly was disputed between the parties based on the papers submitted. To the extent further motions to seal become necessary in this case, the court requests the moving party to submit a table identifying each proposed redaction and the location of each proposed redaction.

The court record at issue in this motion is Plaintiffs' Declaration of Scott A. McMillan in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to John Doe's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Under CCP § 664.6. (ROA 719.) This motion appears to be primarily directed at whether Plaintiffs' counsel used a dark enough ink when making required redactions pursuant to the court's existing Safer at Home sealing order prior to filing a declaration. The court agrees the redactions in the filed document do not sufficiently protect Defendant's identifying information from public view. Court intervention should not have been necessary on this issue. The court notes Plaintiffs' counsel states he offered to stipulate to resolve this issue informally.

(McMillan Decl. ¶ 3.) The remainder of the motion is apparently directed to several instances in which Defendant's name appears within a URL address on an exhibit attached to the subject declaration. The court agrees these are 'online identifiers' within the meaning of subsection (a)(2) of section 376.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should be redacted.

The court finds Defendant has submitted evidence that he remains an active participant of the Safer at Home program. Accordingly, the court finds there is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record at issue in this motion such support sealing the proposed portions of those records. Further, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. The proposed order to seal is narrowly tailored, and a less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest does not exist.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000393  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MCMILLAN VS DOE [IMAGED]  37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL Defendant has lodged a redacted version of the record to be sealed. The court clerk is directed to place the redacted version in the public court file in place of the original document that Defendant has asked the court to seal.

Defendant filed a proposed order with its moving papers. The proposed order inappropriately includes a proposed award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff/Plaintiffs' counsel. No request for monetary sanctions was contained in the moving papers, and no facts of 'intentional violation' were offered in the moving papers. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 376.3(b)(2).) The court is not imposing sanctions on Mr. McMillan. The parties and their agents and attorneys are reminded that they are required to use the pseudonym 'in all pleadings, discovery requests or discovery motion documents, and other documents filed or served in the action, and at hearings, trial, and other court proceedings that are open to the public,' and are subject to sanctions for any intentional violation.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3(b)(2)(A).) Defendant is to submit a revised proposed order on or before August 25, 2023. The revised proposed order is to be completely filled out, consistent with the findings made in this ruling, on judicial council form SH-025.

The court sets a case management conference for December 22, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000393  15