Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV27973, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27973    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Lydia Cincore-Templeton (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on July 24, 2020, against Defendants Beverly Smith, Cheryl Hickmon, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on October 13, 2021. The TAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) violation of Unfair Competition Law, (4) declaratory relief, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) negligence, and (7) intentional interference with prospective economic, reputational, and political relations. 

Defendants now move for an order to file certain documents under seal. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(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(d).)

Defendants indicate that on September 7, 2022, Defendants and Plaintiff (jointly referred to as the “Parties”) attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) with Judge Dennis Landin. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 2.) At the MSC, the Parties settled this matter. (Roquemore Decl.,  ¶ 2.) On February 8, 2023, Defendants filed a motion in this matter for an order enforcing the settlement reached by the Parties at the MSC.

In the instant motion, Defendants seek to seal (1) portions of Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement, and (2) Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F to the Declaration of Joshua L. Roquemore in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (herein, the “Records”).

Defendants state that the Records contain, reference, or discuss confidential settlement terms. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants assert that public disclosure of these terms would violate the confidentiality provision of the Parties’ settlement (memorialized in the Parties’ Memorandum of Understanding) and would likely prejudice and/or injure the Parties and/or third parties. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 3.)

The Court notes that a “contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule [2.550 (formerly 243.10(d))].” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) The Court finds that the overriding interest of the parties to adhere to their contractual obligation supports sealing the Records. The Court also finds that Defendants have shown that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the Records are not sealed. Defendants assert that “disclosure of the documents would result in a substantial risk of serious injury to the parties and/or third parties - reputationally and economically.” (Mot. at p. 4:17-19.)

The proposed sealing is “narrowly tailored,” as it relates to records that contain confidential settlement terms and correspondence. As discussed, Defendants indicate that the Records reference confidential settlement terms, and that public disclosure of these terms would violate the confidentiality provision of the Parties’ settlement. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 3.) In addition, Defendants only propose that portions of their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement be redacted. The Court also finds that there is no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated good cause to seal the Records.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to file records under seal is granted.

Pursuant to ¿California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e)¿, the Court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the Records ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the Records as sealed by this order.  

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this ruling. 

DATED:  March 7, 2023                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court