Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV07352, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07352    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

 

FALCON MARKETING, LLC,

 

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

SAMANTHA DE GALICIA, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

Case No.:

21STCV07352

Hearing Date:

April 25, 2023

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

 

MOTION OF DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SAMANTHA DE GALICIA TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE

RECORD

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

 

 

Background

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff Falcon Marketing, LLC (“Falcon”) filed this action against Defendant Samantha De Galicia (“De Galicia”). The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on March 10, 2021, and asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) conversion, (3) intentional interference with a contractual relationship, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

On April 30, 2021, De Galicia filed a Cross-Complaint against Falcon and Yosef Adelman (“Adelman”), asserting causes of action for (1) hostile work environment harassment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) failure to prevent harassment in violation of Gov. Code  § 12940(k); (4) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy; (5) civil and sexual battery; (6) false imprisonment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence; (9) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code  § 226; and (10) failure to pay overtime and pay all wages due.

De Galicia now moves for an order directing the clerk to (1) remove from the Register of Actions and thereafter seal Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 25, 2021, and; (2) Remove from the Register of Actions and thereafter seal Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on March 10, 2021. Falcon and Adelman filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of De Galicia’s motion contains redacted material. In addition, the Declaration of Geoffrey C. Chackel in support of the motion contains redacted material, as does the Compendium of Exhibits filed in support of the motion.

De Galicia has not filed a motion to seal the redacted portions of the motion. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (a), “[a] record must not be filed under seal without a court order. 

The Court also notes that “[i]f necessary to prevent disclosure, any motion or application, any opposition, and any supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and lodged in a complete, unredacted version conditionally under seal. The cover of the redacted version must identify it as ‘Public--Redacts materials from conditionally sealed record.’ The cover of the unredacted version must identify it as ‘May Not Be Examined Without Court Order--Contains material from conditionally sealed record.’ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(5).) De Galicia filed a notice of “Materials Lodged Conditionally Under Seal,” which indicates that “Defendant and Cross-Complainant Samantha De Galicia hereby encloses copies of Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 25, 2021, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on March 10, 2021 which are designated as the ‘Proposed Sealed Documents’ in the Motion to Seal Portions of the Record.” This notice does not indicate that an unredacted version of the moving papers was lodged conditionally under seal. In addition, it is unclear if De Galicia contends that the redacted portions of her moving papers were redacted to prevent disclosure of the information De Galicia seeks to seal.  

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on De Galicia’s motion to seal portions of the record

is continued to ____________, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50. De Galicia’s must “lodge[] in a complete, unredacted version conditionally under seal,” the papers filed in support of the instant motion, to the extent De Galicia contends that the redactions to the moving papers are necessary to prevent disclosure of the information De Galicia seeks to seal. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(5).) If De Galicia does not contend that the redactions to her moving papers are necessary to prevent disclosure, De Galicia must file and serve an unredacted version of the moving papers.

De Galicia is ordered to give notice of this Order.

 

DATED:  April 25, 2023                                                       

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court