Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC708104, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: BC708104 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative
Ruling
Judge
Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: December 7, 2022
CASE NAME: Sergey Grishin v. Twelve Productions Ltd.
CASE NO.: BC708104
MOTION TO SEAL
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Sergey Grishin
RESPONDING PARTY(S):
None
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An order sealing certain
documents filed in support of the Opposition to Motion
for Financial Discovery (Motion #3.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
1.
Motion to Seal
is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiffs Sergey Grishin (“Grishin”) and his company SG
Acquisitions, LLC (“SGA”) filed a Complaint on May 29, 2018
against Defendants Anna Fedoseeva (“Fedoseeva”) and Jennifer Sulkess (“Sulkess”) and their movie
production company, Twelve Production, Ltd. (“TP”), alleging that they
defrauded Grishin and his company to loan or invest approximately half a
million dollars in Fedoseeva and Sulkess’s movie production company.¿
¿
Fedoseeva and Sulkess filed a Cross-complaint on January 24, 2019
and the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) on February 21, 2019 against
Grishin and Roes. The FACC asserts the following causes of action:¿
¿
1.
Cyberstalking in violation of
Civil Code § 646.9;¿
2.
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress;¿
3.
Invasion of Privacy;¿
4.
Domestic Violence in
violation of Civil Code § 1708.6;¿
5.
Assault;¿
6.
Battery;¿
7.
False Imprisonment;¿
8.
Civil Extortion by Letter in
violation of Penal Code §§ 518 et seq.¿
On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Demurrer to the First
Amended Cross-Complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
California law authorizes the sealing of court records
containing confidential information.¿ (NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, n. 46.)¿ California Rules of Court Rule
2.551(a) provides that a record may not be filed under seal without a court
order and the court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based
solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 2.551(a).)¿ The party requesting a record be filed under seal must file a
motion or an application for an order sealing the record that is accompanied by
a memorandum or declaration containing facts to justify the sealing.¿ (Id.,
rule 2.551(b)(1).)¿ “The court may order that a record be filed under seal” if
it finds that there is an overriding interest in favor of maintaining the
confidentiality of the information.¿ (Id., rule 2.550(d).)¿
The factual findings required to seal records require the
court to expressly find that (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(d)(1)-(5).)¿
The Supreme Court identified in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV)
v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 the following examples of
overriding interests:¿
1) protection
of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment; ¿
2) privacy interests of a prospective juror during
individual voir dire;¿
3) protection of witnesses from embarrassment or
intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to
testify;¿
4) protection of trade secrets;¿
5) protection of information within the attorney-client
privilege; ¿
6) enforcement of binding contractual obligations not
to disclose; ¿
7) safeguarding national security;¿
8) ensuring the anonymity of juvenile offenders in
juvenile court; and¿
9) ensuring the fair administration of justice by
preserving confidential investigative information.¿
(NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court (1999)
20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222 fn. 46.)¿
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Sergey Grishin moves to
seal the following portions of the moving papers:
·
The following exhibits to the Declaration of
Amman Khan: Exhibits 6, 8-13, 15.
·
The following exhibits to the Declaration of
Sergey Grishin: Exhibit 4
·
The following paragraphs to the Declaration of
Sergey Grishin: Paragraphs 2, 14, 21, 23-29, 31, and 34.
·
The following portions of Plaintiff’s
Opposition: 2:18-20, 13:21, 14:10-12, 14:16, 14:21, 14:23-15:7, 15:8, 15:11-18,
and 17:20-24.
This motion is
unopposed. The information sought to be sealed is confidential medical
information.
Plaintiff argues that his right to
privacy in his medical information overrides the right of access to court
records. Plaintiff argues that, due to many publications attacking Plaintiff’s
mental health and character, if Plaintiff’s private medical information is not
sealed, it will likely be disclosed and used against Plaintiff. Plaintiff
argues that sealing the records is the least restrictive way to protect
Plaintiff’s privacy rights. This information has been deemed “Confidential”
pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and protective order. (Khan Decl. ¶ 4.) This
Court has previously granted Plaintiff’s requests to seal medical records. (See
6/23/22 Minute Order.)
The Court finds that sealing the documents is warranted
because Plaintiff’s medical history is protected by a right to privacy in the
California constitution and disclosure of such information to an opponent in
civil litigation does not waive the privilege to keep the information from
third parties, including the public. (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1068.) Given
the limited scope of the documents to be filed under seal, Plaintiff’s right to
privacy in the information contained therein outweighs the public’s right to
public access to that information.
Thus, the following the following is portions of the Opposition
to Motion for Financial Discovery (Motion #3) are ORDERED sealed:
·
The following exhibits to the Declaration of
Amman Khan: Exhibits 6, 8-13, 15.
·
The following exhibits to the Declaration of
Sergey Grishin: Exhibit 4
·
The following paragraphs to the Declaration of
Sergey Grishin: Paragraphs 2, 14, 21, 23-29, 31, and 34.
·
The following portions of Plaintiff’s
Opposition: 2:18-20, 13:21, 14:10-12, 14:16, 14:21, 14:23-15:7, 15:8, 15:11-18,
and 17:20-24.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending
motion as follows:
Motion to Seal is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 7, 2022 ___________________________________
Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court