Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV18823, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18823    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff Georgeta Beldiman, as an Individual, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys General (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant BHFC Operating, LLC, DBA “Bottega Louie” (“Defendant”). The Complaint asserts ten causes of action.

Plaintiff now moves for an order that all records filed in this action be placed under seal. Defendant filed a “non-opposition” to the motion which indicates, inter alia, that “Defendant does not oppose the Motion, but Defendant believes the Court should apply the appropriate rules regarding sealing of Court records.” (Non-Opposition at p. 2:3-4.)

            Discussion

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “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, subd. (d).)

            Plaintiff seeks to seal “[a]ll papers and records related to the instant Action.” (Mot. at     p. 2:9.) As to the first and second elements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d), Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he overriding interest that overcomes the right to public access to the records, which supports sealing the subject records, is the constitutional and statutory privacy rights of the Plaintiff to the intensely personal, private and confidential information contained in the documents filed in the instant matter.” (Mot. at p. 4:19-22.) In her declaration, Plaintiff states that she is “seeking that all papers and records related to the instant Action be placed under seal,” and that “[t]he grounds for placing said records under seal include are [sic] the overriding interests of [Plaintiff’s] constitutional and statutory privacy rights to the intensely personal, private and confidential information contained in the documents filed in the instant matter, including medical records.” (Beldiman Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) However, the Court notes that the motion does not identify any such purported private and/or confidential information in the documents that have been filed in this case. Thus, it is unclear what specific information Plaintiff contends is private and confidential.

            As to the third element of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d), Plaintiff asserts that “[t]here is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed as Plaintiff believes there is a legitimate risk of data breaches of her confidential information, as well as a legitimate risk of prejudice by prospective employers who learn that she filed a lawsuit against a prior employer.” (Mot. at p. 4:23-26.) Plaintiff states in her declaration that she “believe[s] that sealing this entire case is proper due to the constant data breaches of [Plaintiff’s] information, and [Plaintiff’s] impending homelessness status as a result of being unemployable and punished by prospective employers due to [Plaintiff] taking a former employer to court.” (Beldiman Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff asserts that she is “certain that prospective employers will not…call [her] for an interview upon learning about [Plaintiff’s] lawsuit against a former employer.” (Beldiman Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court notes that Plaintiff does not explain in the motion how the filing of documents in the instant case resulted in a “data breach” of Plaintiff’s information.  

            As to the fourth element of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d), Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored considering this case was submitting [sic] to private arbitration.” (Mot. at p. 4:26-27.) The Court does not see how the fact that this action was submitted to private arbitration is relevant to whether the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. The Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, as Plaintiff seeks to seal all papers and records related to the instant action.

As to the fifth element of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d), Plaintiff asserts that “no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest considering the public will have access to her court records and prospective employers will be able to search for information relating to the instant Action but for the Court ordering all records in this Action be sealed.” (Mot. at p. 5:2-5.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d) to seal all of the papers and records related to the instant action. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  April 26, 2023                               

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court