2013-00147108-CU-MC

Sunridge LLC vs. Aerojet-General Corporation

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Order Sealing Record

Filed By: Calnero, Carl J.

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the complaint in this action is UNOPPOSED but is DENIED
without prejudice.

A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to trials and court records and
court records are presumed to be open. (CRC Rule 2.550(c).) The public’s right to
attend trials and review court records arises from the First Amendment’s constitutional
guarantee of the public’s access to the courts, which extends to the evidence and
testimony a court considers in discharging its constitutional obligation to uphold and
apply the law. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th
1178, 1209). Because First Amendment constitutional guarantees are at stake, trial
courts must tread carefully and may seal court records only in limited circumstances.
Our Supreme Court established in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court ,
supra, that “before substantive courtroom proceedings are closed or transcripts are
ordered sealed, a trial court must…expressly find” that excluding the public from the
courtroom is the least restrictive way to avoid a “substantial probability” that an
“overriding interest” will suffer prejudice from public disclosure. (Id., at 1217-1218.)
When, as here, the relief sought extends to the permanent sealing of court records
rather than temporary limitation of access, the trial court must be careful to limit its
denial of access by narrow and well-defined orders. (Estate of Hearst (1977) 67
Cal.App.3d 777, 784-785.) Since court records are public records, the burden rests on
the party seeking to deny public access to those records to establish compelling
reasons why and to what extent these records should be made private. (Id., at 785.)
Although a court has power to control its own records to protect litigants’ rights “where
there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public
records must be freely allowed.” (Id., at 783 (quoting Craemer v. Superior Court (1968)
265 Cal.App.2d 216, 222).)

The Court is not persuaded that plaintiffs’ proposed redaction of the entire body of the
complaint is warranted under the circumstances. Specifically, it remains unclear that
the redaction of the entire complaint is “narrowly tailored” and/or that “no less
restrictive means” exists to achieve the overriding interest within the meaning of CRC
Rule 2.550(d)(4)-(5).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)