Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV10630, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV10630    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED 

Background 

On March 28, 2022, the Successors-in-Interest of the Estate of Alejandro Valencia Mendez, Alejandro Valencia Linares, and Alejandrina Valencia Linares filed this instant action against the City of Los Angeles, Charles Garcia, Ghanshym Patel, and Does 3 to 25. 

The Complaint alleges: 

1) Wrongful Death (Battery) Survival Action (CCP § 377.30)

2) Wrongful Death (Negligence) Survival Action (CCP§ 377.30)

3) Wrongful Death Battery (CCP § 377.60)

4) Violation of the Bane Act (Civ. Code § 52.1) 

On September 09, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal. The Defendants filed a response in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal. 

Legal Standard 

To seal a record, the following requirements are imposed: (1) the party must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record, which must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing; (2) the party must serve a copy of the motion on all parties who have appeared in the case; and (3) the party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court when the motion or application is made unless the record has previously been lodged. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b).)  

The Court must make the following express factual findings in order to seal records: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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, subd. (d).)  

An order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing of only those pages and documents or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal, and all other portions must be included in the public file. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (e).)  

Discussion 

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Seal Exhibit C to the Declaration of Eugene Iredale in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Seal titled the “Force Investigation Report Division F015-17 Officer Involved Shooting” that was produced by Defendants under a protective order in Estate of Mendez v. City of Los Angeles, Central District of California case no.: CV18-00082-R-MRW. Plaintiffs do not believe Exhibit C continues to be subject to a protective order. A redacted version of the Force Report was also filed as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Eugene Iredale in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendants assert that the documents are protected by the Official Government Information Privilege and were obtained by Plaintiffs during the Federal matter but not this State matter and Plaintiffs were required to obtain a Pitchess/Vela Rosales Motion prior to obtaining access. 

According to City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1984), such police records are privileged confidential communications subject only to discovery under procedures set forth in the Evidence Code. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 82.) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Exhibit C to the Motion for Summary Judgment is ORDERED SEALED. 

Plaintiff to give notice.