Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01213795, Date: 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1

Plaintiff’s (Martha Ibarra) Motion to Seal Confidential Settlement Agreement (Motion), filed on 8-29-22 under ROA No. 55, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part set forth below.

McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 31 explains, “ ‘The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication. [Citation.] Substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases, and the transcripts and records pertaining to these proceedings, are “ ‘presumptively open.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]”

California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, states, “(a) A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. [¶] (b)(1) A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. . . .”

California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (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.”

“The right of privacy is an ‘ “inalienable right” ’ secured by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. [Citation.] The right of privacy protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of private or personal information and ‘extends to one’s confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of one's personal life.’ [Citation.] (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754.)  Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283 (Universal), states, “The first of the two omitted footnotes in the quoted portion from NBC Subsidiary in the immediately preceding sentence is footnote 46, which refers to Publicker and the right to closure or sealing in furtherance of the potential overriding interest of enforcement of a binding contractual obligation not to disclose. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1222, fn. 46, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337; see Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, supra, 733 F.2d at p. 1073.) Nonetheless, once it is established there is a potential overriding interest, the party seeking closure or sealing must prove prejudice to that interest is substantially probable. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1222, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337.)”

Based on the hearing on 4-25-23, the Motion seeks to seal ROA Nos. 66 and 76.  ROA No. 68 is the public, redacted version of ROA No. 66.  ROA No. 77 is the public, redacted version of ROA No. 76.  Here, Plaintiff has presented evidence that the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant was confidential. (Brim Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit 1; See also, the declaration from Eric Welch.)  This evidence is sufficient to show that Plaintiff has an overriding interest that supports the requested sealing.

On 6-9-23 under ROA No. 99, Defendant provided a redacted version of the Confidential Settlement Agreement.  First, Defendant proposes redacting paragraphs 3(a) and (b) under the heading “Consideration/Indemnification for Tax Consequences.” (ROA No. 99.)  Second, Defendant proposed redacting paragraphs 5(a) and (b) under the heading “Disbursal of Settlement Funds/Dismissal of Claims.” (ROA No. 99.)  Third, Defendant proposes redacting portions of paragraph 9(d) under the heading “Limited Disclosure.” (ROA No. 99.) 

The Motion states, “Moreover, if the privacy protection is not upheld here, it would create a chilling effect on future litigants considering settlement because they would be forced to decide between settling their disputes and preserving the privacy of their affairs. (Motion; 6:3-6.)  The court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated an overriding interest that supports keeping the amount of the settlement confidential under paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Confidential Settlement Agreement based on the parties’ right to privacy in their financial affairs. 

The court, however, does not find that there is an overriding interest that supports the sealing of paragraphs 5(a) and (b), and 9(d) because these provisions do not implicate the amount of the settlement.

Based on the above, the court expressly finds, there is an the parties overriding privacy interest in their financial affairs overcomes public access to the records sought to be sealed, this overriding interest supports the sealing of the records the Motion seeks to seal, there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced  if the records are not sealed, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored because the court is only sealing paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Confidential Settlement Agreement, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest because the court is limiting the scope of the sealing.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Martha Ibarra) Motion to Seal Confidential Settlement Agreement filed on 8-29-22 under ROA No. 55 as to paragraph 3(a) and (b) of the Confidential Settlement Agreement.  The court ORDERS the sealing of ROA Nos. 45, 49, 66, and 76.  The court ORDERS Plaintiff to publicly file redacted versions of ROA Nos. 45, 49, 66, and 76 consistent with the court’s ruling.  The court DENIES the Motion to as any other parts of the Confidential Settlement Agreement.  The court also ORDERS Plaintiff to publicly file a redacted version of ROA No. 99 that is consistent with the court’s ruling.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff’s (Martha Ibarra) unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement (Motion), filed on 1-19-23 under ROA No. 68, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 states, “(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. [¶] (b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: [¶] (1) The party. [¶] (2) An attorney who represents the party. [¶] (3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf.”

Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, (2019) 33 Cal. App. 5th 913, 917 (Mesa), provides, “A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’ [Citation]”

Paragraph 13(b) of the Settlement Agreement states, “In the event of a breach of any provision of this Settlement Agreement, any Party may institute a Claim specifically to enforce any term or terms of this Settlement Agreement or seek damages for breach. However, the Party instituting such a Claim must take steps to file this Settlement Agreement or any documents setting forth the terms of this Settlement Agreement with the court under seal. In a Claim to enforce any term or terms of this Settlement Agreement or to seek damages for breach of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party in that Claim shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and any applicable interest at the governing legal rate therein. The Parties agree to a stipulated judgment should Respondent not make payment when due. Respondent shall have a grace period of one week to make any delinquent payment to Claimant’s counsel as indicated above. Claimant’s counsel shall inform Respondent’s counsel Mr. Welch, Esq. of The Baron HR, verbally, by email, or facsimile of the delinquent payment. If payment is not made within a week of the due date, Claimant’s counsel, Mitchel Brim on behalf of Johnson Attorneys Group may go in ex parte to obtain a stipulated judgment for the amount remaining due, plus interest at the legal rate therein, and recover attorney’s fees and costs. The Court governing the Lawsuit will maintain jurisdiction of the Lawsuit and the non-breaching Party may seek to enforce the terms of this Settlement by entering a judgment pursuant to Labor Code Section 664.6.”

Defendants (Baronhr West, Inc. and Legendary Staffing, Inc.) appear to concede that they have breached the Settlement Agreement by delaying payments of the “. . . amounts due and owing . . .” (Welch Decl. filed on 2-10-23 under ROA No. 70; ¶¶ 2, 3, and 4)

Based on paragraph 13(b) of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that the court maintained jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (The court interprets the reference to the Labor Code as a mistake.)  Paragraph 13(b) allows the court to enter a judgment if there is a breach of the confidential settlement agreement.  Defendant does not dispute that it has breached the confidential settlement agreement by failing to pay the required amounts.

Based on the above the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Martha Ibarra) unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement filed on 1-19-23 under ROA No. 68.

Plaintiff is to give notice.