Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV45317, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV45317    Hearing Date: August 21, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

KIMBERLY ARNOLD, et al.,,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)

)

     CASE NO.:  20STCV45317

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER SEALING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN REYNA ARNOLD, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AND DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

August 21, 2023

 

 

 

 

Reyna Arnold (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Kimberly Arnold, filed this action against defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) on November 25, 2020, regarding an automobile accident. which resulted in the death of her father, Kavin Arnold.  Ford moves for an order sealing the settlement amount, including any documents or filings that contain the settlement amount such as a petition to approve minor’s compromise, reached between Plaintiff and Ford.  A copy of the redacted settlement agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the application.

"An order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of the documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (e).) Regarding the "facts that support the findings", pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d): “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.”

Courts have recognized that a contractual agreement not to disclose the terms of a confidential settlement agreement can constitute an overriding interest justifying the sealing of the settlement agreement.  (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283 [“We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).”].)

Here, the settlement agreement provides that the amount of the settlement, its financial terms, and any fact concerning its negotiation, execution, or implementation shall be confidential.  (Motion, Adams Decl., Ex. A at § 13.0.)  The overriding interest here accordingly appears to be the contractual agreement not to disclose the amount of the settlement.  Further, the motion seeks only that filings containing the settlement amount be filed under seal to protect the confidential terms, so the sealing appears sufficiently narrowly tailored.  Both parties also wish to keep their financial information from the public and there is no overriding public interest to know the settlement amount as the case will not be adjudicated on the merits. These privacy interests, especially Plaintiff’s financial privacy as a minor, will be prejudiced if the amount of the settlement is not sealed.  Last, no other method can be used to achieve the parties' confidentiality interests because Plaintiff must file a petition to obtain the settlement proceeds, and sealing the settlement amount in the Petition is the only way to protect the above overriding interests.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the unopposed application to seal.

Dated this 21st day of August, 2023

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.