Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV46433 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV46433, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46433 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Universal City Studios LLC’s Motion to Seal is DENIED.

Legal Standard

A motion or application to file under seal must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (CRC 2.551(b)(1).) “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only 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.

(CRC 2.550(d).) Pursuant to Rule 2.550(e), “[a]n order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (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.” “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC 2.550(c).)

“Substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases, and the transcripts and records pertaining to these proceedings, are presumptively open.” (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 31.) “A request to seal a document must be filed publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration or affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” (In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416.) “[A]t a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

Discussion

Defendant moves to seal video footage of the incident, arguing that it has an overriding interest in keeping the video footage confidential that overcomes the right of public access. Defendant argues Universal is part of a large, multi-faceted corporation, whose reach is worldwide. Information regarding Universal's business practices, including video surveillance of its operations despite very little evidence, if any, supporting its liability, can certainly fan the flames and peak the interests of future litigants and the public in general as new fodder. Therefore, Universal's overriding interest in discouraging these prospective future litigants and keeping information confidential from unnecessary public curiosity supports sealing the record.

Defendant’s motion is supported by the declaration of its counsel who merely attests that it has an overriding interest to preserve the confidentiality of video of Universal’s business practices and its operations. (Schrieffer Decl. ¶ 7.)

Ordinarily, “financial information” that involves “confidential matters relating to the business operations” of the moving party will be sealed, because “public revelation of these matters would interfere with its ability to effectively compete in the marketplace.” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286 [dictum].)

However, Defendant has not stated the video contains financial information. Moreover, the declaration is extremely vague as to the overriding issue here, and fails to specifically state the facts that support the findings or the particular needs of the case. Without these facts, the Court cannot issue an order sealing the record.

The Supreme Court identified in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 the following examples of overriding interests:

1) protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment;
2) privacy interests of a prospective juror during individual voir dire;
3) protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to testify;
4) protection of trade secrets;
5) protection of information within the attorney-client privilege;
6) enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose;
7) safeguarding national security;

8) ensuring the anonymity of juvenile offenders in juvenile court; and
9) ensuring the fair administration of justice by preserving confidential investigative information.

(NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222 fn. 46.)

Defendant has not established a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (CRC Rule 2.550(c); Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)

Second, as the declaration does not articulate any specific facts, it cannot support sealing the record.

Third, Defendant has not presented any evidence that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. No evidence has been presented showing defendant will be harmed if the video is made public. Defendant’s counsel only states that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. (Schrieffer Decl., ¶ 9.) “In delineating the injury to be prevented, specificity is essential. [Citation.] Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” (In re Cendant Corp., supra, 260 F.3d at p. 194.)

In sum, Defendant has not shown an overriding interest in sealing the video footage which would outweigh the public right of access to court records, or prejudice.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.