Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV27973, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27973    Hearing Date: May 4, 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.

On February 8, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to enforce settlement. On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Partial Opposition by Plaintiff Lydia Templeton to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement” (herein the “Partial Opposition”).   

Plaintiff now moves for an order to file the Partial Opposition 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, subdivision (d).)

In support of the motion, Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that “[o]n or about March 13, 2023, my office filed a partial opposition to defendants’ motion to enforce settlement. Therein, I identified the terms of the settlement agreement.” (Quiller Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[s]ubsequently, defense counsel conveyed that he believes that the terms of the agreement are confidential. Plaintiff agrees that the financial terms are confidential, but the entirety of the resolution is not confidential hence the public statement. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to craft a mutually agreeable joint statement to be shared with members of Delta. Nevertheless, in the interests of compromise and in good faith, we request that the declaration submitted in support of said opposition be filed under seal.” (Quiller Decl., ¶ 4.)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s notice of motion appears to request that the entire Partial Opposition be filed under seal. The motion provides that “Plaintiff LYDIA TEMPLETON, respectfully requests that the following document be filed under seal: 1. PARTIAL OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF LYDIA TEMPLETON TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; DECLARATION OF DOMINIC A. QUILLER, ESQ.” (Mot. at    p. 1:26-2:2.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of the instant motion to seal conflicts with this request, as it indicates “we request that the declaration submitted in support of said opposition be filed under seal.” (Quiller Decl., ¶ 4.)

Moreover, the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the instant motion does not cite to any law or discuss the application of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d). The motion does not contain any discussion regarding whether there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the Partial Opposition (or just the declaration in support thereof); whether the overriding interest supports sealing the record(s); whether a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record(s) are not sealed; whether the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; or whether no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

Conclusion

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

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling. 

DATED:  May 4, 2023                                   ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court