Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 19STCV33158 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV33158, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV33158 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: 31

MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED IN PART AND CONTINUED IN PART

tentative ruling

The Motion to Seal is GRANTED as to portions of the Declaration of Marc C. Cohen and the Declaration of Cynthia Cardenas; Exhibits 2 to 9 and 73 and 74 filed in Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The hearing is CONTINUED to January 17, 2023, to allow Plaintiff to submit a supplemental declaration attesting to specific facts as to why Exhibits 23, 28, 38 and 39, 44, 49, 50, 55, 60 to 61, 70, 71, and 75 should be sealed.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

In this action, several sheriff’s deputies (“Plaintiffs”) who were formerly assigned to the East L.A. station allege that they were pressured to quit their jobs or leave the station and that they were otherwise harassed by other deputies who are alleged members of a gang known as the Banditos.

The operative Sixth Amended Complaint alleges discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related claims against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) and alleges assault, battery, and other claims against Individual Defendants Rafael “Rene” Munoz (“Munoz”), Gregory Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), David Silverio (“Silverio”), and Michael Hernandez (“MH”) (collectively “Individual Defendants”).

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Seal Defendants’ Exhibits filed in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment.

On December 22, 2022, Defendants filed opposing papers.

Plaintiff filed a reply on December 30, 2022.

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

The County lodged certain unredacted deposition excerpts and medical reports with the Court that were filed in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to a Protective Order. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, these documents are not publicly accessible. The Plaintiffs now move to seal the medical reports and depositions.

The County opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal to the extent that it designates entire deposition transcripts as “Confidential,” despite requests that the Plaintiffs review the deposition transcript and designate those portions that do not meet the confidentiality standard under the February 28, 2020 Protective Order. (Tokoro Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs have also designated documents produced in their discovery and medical report as “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

Although the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have a privacy interest in keeping their personal and health information confidential, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

The Court analyzed each redaction and Plaintiffs Motion to determine if the Motion to Seal should be granted.

Health and Medical Records

The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs have a right to privacy in his medical records and medical condition. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4thh 1008, 1014; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 554 [recognizing that one’s medical history is sensitive data].)

For this reason, the Court recognizes that information pertaining to the Plaintiffs’ health information and medical records should be sealed.

Declaration of Marc C. Cohen

The Plaintiffs request that paragraphs 4 to 11 of the Declaration of Marc C. Cohen filed in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment should remain redacted and under seal.

Exhibits 2 to 9

Exhibits 2 to 9, filed in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, are the Independent Medical Examination (IME) of various Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs request that the IMEs remain redacted and under seal.

Exhibits 73 to 74

Exhibits 72 and 73 are medical records belonging to two Plaintiffs.

The Court finds that there exists an overriding interest to seal the materials relating to the IMEs and portions of the Declaration of Marc. C. Cohen referencing the results of the IMEs. The documents contain sensitive medical and other private information concerning Plaintiffs. The information implicates legitimate privacy concerns. The overriding interest in protecting the confidentiality of the Plaintiffs’ health and medical information outweighs any right that the public may have to the information. There appears to be only a limited interest, if any, in the public regarding the information contained in the documents. Furthermore, a substantial probability exists that the overriding privacy interest will be prejudiced without sealing. The sealing of each of the IMEs in their entirety and the redactions to paragraphs 4 to 11 of the Declaration of Marc C. Cohen are narrowly tailored and there are no less restrictive means to protect this interest.

For these reasons, the Motion to Seal is GRANTED as to portions of the Declaration of Marc C. Cohen and Exhibits 2 to 9 and 73 and 74, filed in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment are to remain under seal.

Personal Files

The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have a substantial privacy interest in their personal records which outweighs the public’s right to access such information. (See Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4thh 640, 652-654.)

Declaration of Cynthia Cardenas

The Declaration of Cynthia Cardenas pertains to promotional exams taken by Plaintiffs and the results. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have a substantial privacy interest in their personal records which outweighs the public’s right to access such information. (See Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4thh 640, 652-654.) Accordingly, the Court agrees that the Declaration of Cynthia Cardenas should remain sealed and that the redacted version filed with this Court is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to protect the Plaintiffs’ privacy interest in their personal records.

Accordingly, the Motion to Seal portions of the Declaration of Cynthia Cardenas is GRANTED.

Deposition Excerpts

Plaintiffs request that Exhibits 23, 28, 38 and 39, 44, 49, 50, 55, 60 to 61, 70, 71, and 75 be sealed.

Exhibits 23, 28, 38 and 39, 44, 49, 50, 55, 60 to 61 are excerpts of Plaintiffs’ depositions filed in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Exhibits 70 and 71 are deposition experts from Captain Richard Mejia and Defendant Rafael Munoz respectively. Exhibit 75 is an exhibit to the deposition of Captain Mejia.

The Court is unable to ascertain the nature of harm threatened by disclosure or the prejudice which may result due to the disclosure of the deposition experts. Plaintiffs do not state any facts whatsoever to “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”].) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting Declaration contain conclusory statements that assert, without facts or information, that Plaintiffs will be substantially prejudiced and suffer irreparable harm without specifying the harm or possible prejudice.

Moreover, Plaintiffs are requesting that the entire exhibits be sealed without explaining why this request is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to justify such an extensive sealing.

Without specific facts, the Court is unable to determine whether the harm associated with disclosure overrides or outweighs the right of public access to the record. The burden of presenting information sufficient to justify sealing records is logically placed on the moving party, “who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4thh 879, 894.) “[A]t a minimum, the party seeking to seal documents . . . must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (Id.)

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs request to seal Exhibits 23, 28, 38 and 39, 44, 49, 50, 55, 60 to 61, 70, 71, and 75 is CONTINUED and Plaintiff is ordered to submit a declaration attesting to specific facts that would justify sealing these exhibits.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.