Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 24STCV23539, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) under seal. On October 31, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For Order Conditionally Sealing and Removing From the Court’s Website Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended Complaint Under Seal and All Related Documents and Removing the Same From the Court’s Website Until The Motion Can Be Heard by the Court.

A record must not be filed under seal without a court order, and a party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a)-(b).) The Court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it finds that (1) there is 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 absent sealing, (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and (5) no less restrictive means exists to achieve the overriding interest. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) A motion seeking an order sealing records must be accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)

Plaintiff asks to seal (1) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ara Krikorian in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal; (2) Paragraphs 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, and 29 of the proposed FAC; and (3) all papers and records related to this motion.

Plaintiff argues that “[t]he overriding interest in this matter for sealing the subject records is that said records are arguably covered under a contractual confidentiality provision between Plaintiff and Defendants, and that disclosure to the public of such records unredacted could subject Plaintiff to a breach of contract action brought by Defendants against Plaintiff.” (Motion at p. 4.) “Without requesting the court to permit the filing of certain records under seal, Plaintiff will be put in the untenable position of having to choose between exercising his rights to access to the courts as an aggrieved employee and subjecting himself to allegations of breach of contract for such filing. Such a result would deprive Plaintiff to his right to a fair trial by subjecting him to liability for filing his employment claims in the first instance.” (Id. at p. 5.)

Plaintiff’s interest does not overcome the right of public access to the record and does not support sealing the record. Some of the proposed redactions appear irrelevant to the confidentiality provision but are very relevant for how this action will be litigated. For example, Paragraph 7 contains allegations of alter ego. Paragraph 13 sets forth the structure for Plaintiff’s compensation, benefits, and commissions, which is necessary for Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages. It is also related to the calculation of Plaintiff’s unredacted damages. (See Proposed FAC ¶ 30.) Paragraphs 14-24 and 27-29 are the essential factual allegations for Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and wrongful termination. This information is necessary to understand Plaintiff’s allegations and claims for damages in the unredacted portions, and it is necessary to reference in future motions and orders. (See Proposed FAC ¶ 30.)

Sealing is also not the least restrictive means to protect Plaintiff’s interest in avoiding Defendants alleging violation of the confidentiality provision, and Plaintiff’s interest will not be prejudiced absent sealing. The confidentiality provision “shall not apply to information that . . . (iii) KRIKORIAN is required to disclose by applicable law, regulation or legal process (provided that KRIKORIAN provides COMPANY with prior notice of the contemplated disclosure and reasonably cooperates with the COMPANY in seeking a protective order or other appropriate protection of such information). (Krikorian Decl., Ex. A at p. 6, ¶ 9(a).) Plaintiff has provided such notice and cooperation.

The Clerk shall unseal the documents that were ordered sealed in the Court’s October 31, 2024 order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court