Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC708104, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC708104    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December 15, 2022                                        

CASE NAME:            Sergey Grishin v. Twelve Productions Ltd.

CASE NO.:                BC708104

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL 

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sergey Grishin

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of December 12, 2022

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order sealing the entire Declaration of Dr. Mark J. Mills, M.D., filed in support of the Opposition to the 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.

The current Application to File Declaration of Dr. Mark J. Mills under Seal was filed on September 13, 2022. No Opposition has been filed as of December 12, 2022.

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 requires 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 moves to seal the Declaration of Mark J. Mills, M.D., which was filed in support of the Opposition to the Motion for Financial Discovery.

            Plaintiffs argue that the declaration contains Plaintiff’s confidential information, specifically about Plaintiff’s medical history. There is no “presumed right of public access to such information." (Motion 2: 23-26.) Plaintiff further argues that even if there was a public right to this information, the sealing of these documents is justified for four main reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s right to privacy overrides the public’s right of access to court records, (2) Plaintiff’s privacy interest supports sealing the records, (3) Plaintiff will be prejudiced if these documents are publicly disclosed, and (4) the request is narrowly tailored to protect the plaintiff’s privacy interest. Lastly, Defendants have previously disclosed medical records, despite instructions to the contrary.

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 fact that Defendants have previously disclosed confidential medical records, despite court instructions not to, sealing of these records is acceptable. Additionally, as Plaintiff argues, there are no less restrictive means to protect Plaintiff’s privacy interest. Lastly, the request is to seal one declaration from Doctor Mills.

Therefore, the Motion to Seal the Declaration of Mark J. Mills, M.D. is GRANTED.

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 15, 2022                 ___________________________________ 

Upinder S. Kalra 

Judge of the Superior Court