Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV20578, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20578 Hearing Date: October 30, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED.
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).)
“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
Plaintiff moves to strike exhibits from
the public record and to file records under seal. Plaintiff inadvertently
included exhibits with its two Pitchess motions that were subject to a
protective order in a federal case. (DeSimone Decl., ¶¶ 9-11; Exh. 1.) These
exhibits included part of Exhibit A (City00031-00075 only) which is the Force
Investigation Division Report; Exhibit C, relevant portions of the transcript
of a tape-recorded interview of Brett Beckstrom; Exhibit D, the video recording
from Defendant Beckstrom’s body-worn camera from the incident; Exhibit E, the
video recording from Defendant Romero’s body-worn camera from the incident;
Exhibit G, relevant portions of the transcript of a tape-recorded interview of
Tyler Moser; and Exhibit N, relevant portions of the transcript of a
tape-recorded interview of Brett Beckstrom. (DeSimone Decl., ¶ 2.) Exhibits A,
C, D, E, and G were included in the reply of the first Pitchess motion, filed
on August 25, 2023. Exhibits A, C, D, E, G, and N were filed with the second
Pitchess motion.
Plaintiff argues there is an overriding interest that
overcomes the right to public access. California courts have repeatedly
recognized that public access to confidential peace officer personnel records
would violate general privacy rights secured by California Constitution Article
I, Section 1. (See Arcelona v. Municipal Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d
523, 532.)
The Court finds that there exists an overriding interest in
the confidentiality of the attachments, that the overriding interest supports
sealing the record, and that a substantial probability exists that the
overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.
State law requires
that the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records or complaints be
maintained. (Penal Code section 832.7;¿Board of Trustees v. Sup. Ct.¿(1981)
119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530.) Such police records are privileged
confidential communications subject only to discourse under procedures set
forth in the Evidence Code. (See City of Santa
Cruz v. Municipal Court¿(1989) 49 Cal.3d
74, 82.) Moreover, the information is subject to a protective
order, which supports the conclusion that the document should be sealed. (See,
e.g., Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231
Cal.App.4th 471, 484 [“As a practical matter, this has meant documents subject
to a protective order often remain outside public purview on a ‘good cause’
showing akin to that which supported issuance of the protective order in the
first place.”] [citing Phillips v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir.2002)
307 F.3d 1206, 1213 [“When a court grants a protective order for information
produced during discovery, it already has determined that ‘good cause’ exists
to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the
needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.”]].) Additionally,
the “enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose” can form
the basis of an order to seal. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior
Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1207 fn. 46.)
The Court further finds that the proposed sealing is
narrowly tailored in that certain portions of the exhibits are to be sealed,
and that no less restrictive means exists to achieve the overriding
interest.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is
GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.