Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV36819, Date: 2022-12-12 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: 19STCV36819 Hearing Date: December 12, 2022 Dept: 31
1) RELIANCE STEEL’S MOTION TO SEAL IS
GRANTED IN PART;
2)
AMI METALS’ MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED IN PART
Background
On October 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Martha Herrera, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Decedent Leonel Herrera (“Decedent”), Gloria Lopez, Melida King, Maria Garcia, Diego Garcia, and Catalina Garcia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Does 1 through 100.
On February 7, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed six (6) Amendments to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
naming Mazak Corporation; Haas Automation, Inc.; Precision Specialty Metals,
Inc.; Alcoa, Inc.; Special Metals Corporation, individually and as
Successor-by-Acquisition to Inco Alloys International, Inc.; and Joseph T.
Ryerson & Son, Inc. (erroneously sued as Ryerson Holding Corporation,
individually and as Successor-by-Acquisition to Atlas Ideal Metals) as Does 1
through 6, respectively.
On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.
On November 16, 2022, Defendants Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Inc. and AMI Metals, Inc. filed separate motions to Seal its Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
The motions are unopposed.
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
Defendant Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Inc. (“Reliance”) has filed a Motion to Seal the following documents:
(1) Reliance Steel’s Motion for an Order for Determination of Good Faith Settlement between Reliance Steel and Plaintiffs (the Good Faith Motion)
(2) Exhibit A to The Declaration of Brett N. Taylor filed in support of the Motion (the Settlement Agreement).
Reliance argues that there is no public policy requiring the disclosure of a private settlement. 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).”].) Reliance further argues that if the motion is denied, it will prejudice the parties and will be contrary to the parties’ terms in the settlement agreement, particularly any financial terms.
Reliance asserts that sealing the terms of the settlement agreement, in particular references to all financial terms, is narrowly tailored to comply with the parties’ settlement agreement. Moreover, reliance asserts that there are no more restrictive means.
Defendant AMI Metals, Inc. (“AMI”) has filed a Motion to Seal the following documents:
(1) AMI Metals’ Motion for an Order for Determination of Good Faith Settlement between AMI Metals and Plaintiffs (the Good Faith Motion)
(2) Exhibit A to The Declaration of Brett N. Taylor filed in support of the Motion (the Settlement Agreement).
AMI argues that it and Plaintiffs have agreed to a
settlement that requires the settlement to remain confidential, except as
necessary to effectuate the good faith settlement determination.
Since there is an interest in obtaining a settlement and keeping the terms of the settlement confidential, there is no public policy supporting disclosure when it would discourage settlement. Accordingly, the parties will be prejudiced if the documents are not sealed. AMI also asserts there are no least restrictive means to protect the confidentiality of the settlement.
Reliance’s and AMI’s Motions are GRANTED as to the sealing of Exhibit A of the Declaration of Brett N. Taylor filed in support of their Motions for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
However, the Court is not convinced there is an overriding
interest in sealing in their entirety the Motions for Determination of Good
Faith Settlement. The sealing of the Defendant’s Motion for Determination of
Good Faith settlement “requires more
than a mere agreement of the parties to seal documents filed in a public
courtroom.” (Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, (2003) 110
Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281.) There must be a showing of “serious injury.” (Id.)
Here the parties have not shown there is an overriding interest in sealing the Motions for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in their entirety when the terms pertaining to the settlement agreement referenced in the motions relate to the causes of action Plaintiffs asserted and a release from present and future liability. This is information that can be gleaned from the record and from any proposed settlement. There is no overriding interest to keep this information confidential. The nonfinancial terms and the fact that the parties entered into a settlement agreement are a matter of public record and fail to show an overriding interest exists in keeping this information confidential. (See Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, at 1284.) Moreover, the sealing of an entire motion is not narrowly tailored and is not the least restrictive means of protecting the interest of the parties.
Accordingly, regarding Reliance’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, filed on November 16, 2022, the portions of the motion referencing the settlement amount will be redacted and sealed, as follows:
Page 3, lines 22 to 23 stating the total sum of the settlement.
Page 4, lines 6 to stating the
total sum of the settlement.
Regarding AMI’s Motion Reliance’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, filed on November 16, 2022, the portions of the motion referencing the settlement amount will be redacted and sealed, as follows:
Page 3, lines 22 to 23 stating the total sum of the settlement.
Page 4, lines 6 to stating the total sum of the settlement.
Based on the foregoing,
Defendants’ Motions to Seal are GRANTED IN PART.
Defendants’ Motions to Seal are GRANTED IN PART.
Defendant Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Inc.’s Motion for an Order for Determination of Good Faith Settlement between Reliance Steel and Plaintiffs filed on November 16, 2022, is redacted and sealed as follows:
Page 3, lines 22 to 23 stating the total sum of the settlement.
Page 4, lines 6 to stating the total sum of the settlement.
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Brett N. Taylor filed in support of Reliance Steel’s Motion for an Order for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is also sealed.
Defendant AMI Metals, Inc.’s Motion for an Order for Determination of Good Faith Settlement between AMI Metals and Plaintiffs filed on November 16, 2022, is redacted and sealed as follows:
Page 3, lines 22 to 23 stating the total sum of the settlement.
Page 4, lines 6 to stating the total sum of the settlement.
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Brett N. Taylor filed in support of AMI Metals’ Motion for an Order for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is also sealed.
Defendants to give notice.