Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 19STCV13174 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV13174, Date: 2022-08-10 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: 19STCV13174 Hearing Date: August 10, 2022 Dept: 31

MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED

Background

The present action arises out of the death of Ernest Newman (“Decedent”). On November 9, 2018, Decedent was a pedestrian crossing the intersection of Gage Avenue and Hoover Street in Los Angeles, California when he was struck by a vehicle driven by Maria Mercedes Guerrero. Maria Mercedes Guerrero was operating the vehicle within the course and scope of her employment with MV Transportation at the time of the subject accident.

On April 16, 2019, Decedent’s mother, Katherine Rivers, initiated the present action. On December 10, 2019, the operative First Amended Complaint was filed. The First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Negligence/Wrongful Death, and (2) Survival Action.

On July 9, 2019, Jocelyn Newman, Decedent’s wife, initiated a separate action for wrongful death arising out of the death of Decedent.

On September 25, 2019, Ernest Newman Jr., Decedent’s son, initiated a separate action for wrongful death arising out of the death of the Decedent.

On June 12, 2020, the Court consolidated all three (3) actions identified above pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation to Consolidate Action. The present case, bearing case number 19STCV13174, was designated as the lead case.

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s attorney for Ernest Newman, Jr. filed a Motion to Seal attachment 18(b)(4) to the Petition of Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action for Person with a Disability.

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

Prior to filing this Motion, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Seal Portions of the Declaration of Cynthia Stephens, filed in support of Plaintiff’s Application for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem. (Min. Or. 12/06/21.) The motion was granted. (Id)

Plaintiff now moves under the same grounds to seal Attachment 18(b)(4) because the request to establish a Special Needs Trust discloses Plaintiff’s disability as required by Probate Code section 3604(b)(1).

On its own motion, the Court takes Judicial Notice of the Supplemental Declaration of Alvin Chang submitted in support of Motion to Seal the Declaration of Cynthia Stephens in Support of Guardian Ad Litem petition, filed November 18, 2021.

Plaintiff Newman, Jr. has the right to privacy in his medical records and medical condition. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4thh 1008, 1014.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s medical condition is unrelated to the present action. In his supplemental declaration, Mr. Chang alleges that disclosure of Plaintiff’s medical condition may lead to stigma and embarrassment such that Plaintiff may be unable to seek housing or employment. (See Supp. Decl. Chang ¶ 4, submitted 11/18/21.) Moreover, the information Plaintiff seeks to keep private “falls within the zone of informational privacy protected by the state and federal Constitutions,” the public interest in privacy overrides the public interest in access to court records. (Oiye V. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1070 [affirming order sealing medical information, finding “public's general right of access to court records recognized in rule 2.550 must give way to the public's concern about the privacy of medical information”].)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated “facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1) [“[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file . . . a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing”].)

Lastly, the Court finds that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and there are no less restrictive means to protect Plaintiff’s overriding right to privacy. Here, the sealing “relates only to a mere redaction of Plaintiff’s medical condition disclosed in attachment 18(b)(4).” (Mot. at 4: 15-16.) The redaction protects Plaintiff’s medical privacy while allowing the Court to make an informed decision on the Petition and the need to establish a Special Needs Trust.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Ernest Newman, Jr.’s Motion to Seal attachment 18(b)(4) to the Petition of Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action for Person with a Disability is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Newman is to give notice.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.