Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV31055, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31055    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     November 14, 2024               TRIAL DATE: January 28, 2025

CASE:                         Olanna Taskey v. Benjamin Boston, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV31055           

MOTION TO SEAL

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Olenna Taskey

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants/Cross-Complainants Benjamin Boston, Lexington Plaza LLC, Roxbury Lane, L.P., Kathy Small d/b/a L.A. Residence, and Elliot Hyland

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/03/19: Complaint filed.

·         03/06/20: Cross-Complaint filed.

·         10/16/20: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed.

·         04/09/21: Second Amended Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a tort action for battery, trespass, and negligence. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hyland was employed by the other Defendants as a property manager, and, while so employed, sexually harassed and physically attacked Plaintiff, who was a tenant at a property owned by Defendants.

Plaintiff moves to seal the entire record.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff moves to seal the entire record.

            The sealing of court records is governed by California Rules of Court rules 2.550 and 2.551.  (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68.)  The presumption of open access to court records does not apply to “records that are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) A party seeking to seal a court record or seeking to file a record under seal must do so by motion or application supported by a declaration showing facts justifying the record’s sealing.  (Id., rule 2.551(b)(1).)  

California Rules of Court rule 2.550(d) states: “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only 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.”  

            Once sealed, a record can only be unsealed by order of court.  (Id., rule 2.551(h)(1).)  So long as it remains under seal, all parties must refrain from filing anything not under seal that would disclose the sealed matter.  (Id., rule 2.551(c).)  If a party files a new document referring to sealed matter, it must submit an unredacted version of the document under seal and a redacted one for the public record.  (Id., rule 2.551(b)(5); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.) 

Plaintiff contends that it is necessary to seal the entire record because, if the record were not sealed, Plaintiff would be “blacklisted” as a tenant who was subject to an unlawful detainer action, thereby irreparably prejudicing her ability to rent in the future. Plaintiff offers no evidence of this risk beyond her bare, unsupported conclusions in her supporting affidavit. (See Declaration of Olenna Taskey ISO Mot.)  Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, this is not an action for unlawful detainer. Thus, the interest which Plaintiff articulates, whether overriding or not, does not support sealing the record and will not be prejudiced by the record remaining unsealed. Further still, Plaintiff’s proposed sealing of the entire record is, on its face, not narrowly tailored to the claimed interest. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is fatally deficient.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  November 14, 2024                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.