Judge: Stuart M. Rice, Case: 23STCV12772, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV12772 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 1
The Court is in receipt of defendant The Cheesecake Factory,
Inc.’s (Defendant) motion to seal the settlement agreement between it and
plaintiff Jesse Anderson (Plaintiff), as well as portions of the declaration of
Evan J. Smith submitted on February 23, 2024 (Smith Declaration) in support of
dismissing the action.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c) provides that “[u]nless
confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be
open.”
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.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule
2.550(d).)
The settlement agreement is not part of the Court’s file, it
therefore need not be sealed. The copy lodged with the Court will be
returned to counsel or destroyed, at counsel’s election. If not retrieved
by April 17, 2024, it will be placed in a recycling bin.
Concerning the portions of the Smith Declaration that
Defendant seeks to seal, Defendant recognizes that it was necessary for the
Court to receive information concerning the settlement to rule on Plaintiff’s request for dismissal
pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.770. Generally speaking, a
binding contractual agreement not to disclose the terms of the settlement may
be an overriding interest that may overcome the right to public access to court
records. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003)
110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) However, the sealing must be the
least restrictive means of achieving the interest. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 2.550(d)(5).)
The interest in keeping the monetary terms of the settlement
confidential exceeds the public right of access to court records, and the Court
has no qualms with redacting them from the Smith Declaration. However,
concerning the non-monetary terms of the settlement contained in paragraph 9 of
the Smith Declaration, the opposite appears true. Plaintiff’s suit was
brought as a class action and to enforce the right of disabled people to access
Defendant’s property. The interest of the public in knowing the
non-monetary terms of the resolution of that issue is at least coextensive with
the public rights sued upon in the complaint and outweighs the interest of the
individual parties in keeping those terms confidential, particularly where the
remediation will not occur immediately but is to be completed at some point in
the future.
Defendant contends that disclosure of the terms of the
settlement would “encourage unjustified litigation or future frivolous claims
against Defendant.” That concern does not seem applicable to the
non-monetary terms of the settlement. Public disclosure of the manner in
which Defendant intends to remedy the issues raised by this lawsuit would not
encourage others to bring meritless claims and would likely discourage such
claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court’s tentative is to grant
the motion in part as to all first term of the settlement in paragraph 9 of
the Smith Declaration. Specifically, the Court will seal:
·
The
last two words of page 2, line 21 of the Smith Declaration, beginning after
“2)”;
·
The
entirety of lines 22-26 of page 2 of the Smith Declaration; and
·
The
entirety of paragraph 10 of the Smith Declaration.
The motion is moot as to the settlement agreement itself,
which is not and will not be in the Court’s file, but which the Court reviewed
in evaluating Plaintiff’s request for dismissal and in ruling on this
motion. Counsel for Defendant is to advise the Court whether that
document is to be returned or destroyed. Defendant to give notice.