Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV27973, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27973    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Lydia Cincore-Templeton (“Plaintiff”) filed 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.”

Plaintiff filed a previous motion on January 25, 2024 to file her March 13, 2023 opposition to Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement under seal. The Court’s February 20, 2024 minute order in this action provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Motion to Seal BY PLAINTIFF TO FILE HER MARCH 13, 2023 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT UNDER SEAL filed by Lydia Cincore-Templeton on 01/25/2024 is Denied.” The Court’s February 20, 2024 minute order further provides that “[o]n or before February 27, 2024 Plaintiff will file a new motion regarding the issues raised in the tentative, particularly whether the proposed sealing need only cover the financial terms.”

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion “for an order to file her March 13, 2023 Opposition to defendants’ motion to enforce settlement 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, 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).)

In support of the motion, Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that at a September 7, 2022 Mandatory Settlement Conference, the parties settled this matter. (Quiller Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[a]fter not obtaining a settlement agreement executed by both parties, the defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement, with a hearing date of March 24, 2023. On or about March 13, 2023, I filed a partial opposition to defendants’ motion to enforce settlement…Within that opposition, I identified the terms of the settlement agreement.” (Quiller Decl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[s]ubsequently, defense counsel conveyed to me his belief that the terms of the agreement are confidential.” (Quiller Decl., ¶ 5.) In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]ne of the sticking points in finalizing the settlement agreement is for this Court to issue an Order sealing the Opposition.” (Quiller Decl., ¶ 9.)

In the motion, Plaintiff states that she “seeks to seal the portion of her Opposition which identifies the financial terms of the settlement, as well as information regarding settlement discussions, both of which the parties have agreed shall be ‘confidential’ and not disclosable.” (Mot. at p. 6:14-16.) Plaintiff asserts that “[p]ublic disclosure of the financial settlement terms would violate the confidentiality provision of the parties’ settlement (memorialized in the Parties’ Memorandum of Understanding) thus satisfying the ‘overriding interest’ requirement for sealing these records.” (Mot. at p. 6:23-25.)

Plaintiff cites to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[i]ndependent of its broader requests, defendant requests that we seal the October 14, 1998, settlement agreement. We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).”[1]

Plaintiff also asserts that “[k]eeping the terms of the settlement agreement public would prejudice the defendants against potential future plaintiffs.” (Mot. at p. 7:2-3.) In addition, Plaintiff argues that “[k]eeping the terms of the settlement public as to the plaintiff could prejudice her reputation and/or underpin her societal standing.” (Mot. at p. 7:6-7.)

            Plaintiff also argues that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. Plaintiff asserts that “[w]orking backwards, the ‘overriding interest’ is satisfied by the simple fact that the terms of the agreement require that the agreement be confidential. Therefore, there are no less restrictive means other than to seal the Opposition…” (Mot. at p. 7:21-23.) Plaintiff also asserts that “[t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored as it merely seeks to seal the financial terms of the settlement agreement, and not the entire Opposition.” (Mot. at p. 7:23-25.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to seal the “financial settlement terms” in Plaintiff’s “partial” opposition filed in this action on March 13, 2023.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to file portions of her March 13, 2023 opposition to Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement under seal is granted.

Pursuant to ¿California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (e)¿, the Court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the March 13, 2023 “Partial Opposition by Plaintiff Lydia Templeton to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement” sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the opposition as sealed by this order.¿¿ 

In addition, as discussed above, Plaintiff “requests that this Court grant [the] motion and order that the requested financial settlement terms in the Opposition be sealed.” (Mot. at p. 8:9-10.) Thus, Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of the March 13, 2023 opposition in which only the “financial settlement terms” are redacted.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order.¿ 

DATED:  March 21, 2024                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court