Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV07352, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07352    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

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 (“FAC”) 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 Falcon’s Complaint filed on February 25, 2021, and (2) remove from the Register of Actions and thereafter seal Falcon’s FAC filed on March 10, 2021. No opposition to the motion was filed.[1]

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)¿.) 

As set forth above, De Galicia seeks an order that the clerk (1) remove from the Register of Actions and thereafter seal Falcon’s Complaint filed on February 25, 2021, and (2) remove from the Register of Actions and thereafter seal Falcon’s FAC filed on March 10, 2021.

De Galicia asserts that there are multiple overriding interests that overcome the right of public access to the records. She asserts that “[t]he first is for a sexual harassment victim to be free from the harmful impact of overtly abusive and retaliatory acts designed to intimidate and deter her from asserting underlying claims of sexual harassment.” (Mot. at p. 9:23-26.) De Galicia asserts that a sealing order “is consistent with the legitimate overriding interest protecting sexual harassment victims from retaliatory conduct.” (Mot. at p. 10:6-7.) De Galicia cites to Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h), which provides that it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.”

As set forth above, De Galicia’s Cross-Complaint in this matter alleges causes of action for, inter alia, quid pro quo sexual harassment and civil and sexual battery. De Galicia asserts that Falcon’s original Complaint and FAC “were intended to intimidate De Galicia into backing away from her sexual harassment allegations.” (Mot. at p. 4:21-23.)

            In her declaration in support of the motion. De Galicia states that “[m]y previous discovery responses outlined, in detail, the sexual harassment I experienced by Yosef Adelman, my supervisor and the owner of Falcon. The harassment and abusive treatment I suffered by   Mr. Adelman caused me to resign from Falcon on September 30, 2020.” (De Galicia Decl., ¶ 3.) De Galicia further states that “[o]n or about March 4, 2021, an unknown individual appeared at my front door and personally served me with a copy of a Complaint filed against me by Falcon…I was shocked and extremely upset about the false allegations that were included in this document. Nothing in this document was true or accurate about me or the events that occurred while I worked at Falcon.” (De Galicia Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) De Galicia asserts that “[t]he allegations made in [the Complaint and FAC] were so spurious that Yosef Adelman caved after just a few hours of deposition…” (Mot. at p. 1:8-9.) De Galicia’s counsel states that he took Adelman’s deposition on October 14, 2021, and that after just a few hours on the record, Falcon’s counsel offered to dismiss the entire FAC, with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver of costs. (Chackel Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.)

            De Galicia asserts that the “second overriding interest is protecting Ms. De Galicia from future trauma and embarrassment caused by Falcon’s fraudulent and retaliatory actions.” (Mot. at p. 10:8-9.) De Galicia cites to People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1024, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[w]hile commercial harm or embarrassment of a party does not alone justify sealing the entire record of a case, it is appropriate to seal certain records when those particular records contain highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing personal information about individuals.” (Internal citation omitted; see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281 [“‘[c]ourts have acknowledged various other overriding interests. (Globe [Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982)] 457 U.S. 596, 607 [73 L. Ed. 2d 248, 102 S. Ct. 2613] [protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment]…”])

De Galicia notes that the FAC contains certain allegations that “were proven false by Adelman’s own text messages shortly after the events on September 17, 2020.” (See Mot. at pp. 10:11-13; 7:2-27; Galicia Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 6.) De Galicia asserts in her declaration that “[t]he false allegations made in the Complaint were intended to humiliate and embarrass me and scare me into dropping my sexual harassment claims against Falcon and Mr. Adelman.” (De Galicia Decl., ¶ 8.)

De Galicia also asserts that “[t]here is…no value in allowing the contents of the Proposed Sealed Documents to remain in the public domain because those documents contain false and defamatory content designed to retaliate against Ms. De Galicia.” (Mot. at p. 11:7-10.)

In addition, De Galicia asserts that the overriding interests will be prejudiced if the subject records are not sealed. De Galicia states in her declaration that “[t]hese false allegations continue to humiliate, shame and embarrass me because they appear online through a public search of my name and are something I have to address with people in my personal and work-life.” (De Galicia Decl., ¶ 9.) De Galicia also states in her declaration that “[i]n 2022, I applied for a job for which I was well qualified. During my initial phone interview the conversation with the company was very positive. However, during a follow-up in person interview, I was specifically asked about the allegations made by Falcon in the Complaint and was forced to defend myself and explain generally what happened. This was extremely embarrassing and humiliating to explain in a job interview. I was not offered the job and being faced with this situation in the future causes me great concern for my ability to gain meaningful employment.” (De Galicia Decl., ¶ 10.)

De Galicia also asserts that “[t]he proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored to include just two documents—the Complaint and the First Amended Complaint.” (Mot. at p. 11:21-22.) In addition, De Galicia asserts that “the only way to achieve the stated overriding interests is to seal the Complaint and First Amended Complaint. There are no less restrictive means to achieve these legitimate objectives because a sealing order is the only way to give Ms. De Galicia the opportunity to be free from future harm caused by their mere existence.” (Mot. at p. 12:4-7.)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that De Galicia has established that there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the subject records; the overriding interest supports sealing the records; a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed; the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, De Galicia’s motion is granted. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (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. The Court further orders that no persons other than the Court and Court staff, as necessary, are authorized to inspect the sealed records.

De Galicia is ordered to provide notice of this Order. 

DATED:  August 3, 2023                                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court