Case Number: BC470016    Hearing Date: September 04, 2014    Dept: 93

NOTE: THIS TENTATIVE IS ON THE MOTION TO SEAL. THE COURT WILL BE DARK ON SEPTEMBER 4 IN THE AFTERNOON COUNSEL MAY SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE FOR THIS MOTION. HOWEVER, THE PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED TO ANOTHER DATE. PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM TO SET A NEW DATE ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THIS ORDER AND THE NEW DATE ON THE HEARING ON THE PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE.

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

MARIA DE LA GUTIERREZ, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al.,

Defendant(s). Case No.: BC470016

Hearing Date: September 4, 2014

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER SEALING PARTS OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Sealing Parts of the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action. The Court further orders that the settlement amounts will not be revealed in open court, and any discussion of the settlement amounts will be held off the record.

In order to file documents under seal, parties must comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 2.551, which states in relevant part:

(a) Court approval required

A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.

(b) Motion or application to seal a record

(1) Motion or application required

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.

(2) Service of motion or application

A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already possesses copies of the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.

The instant motion to seal was served on all parties in this action. (Motion, Proof of Service.) The court may order that a record be filed under seal under Rule 2.550(d) only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(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.

Sealing the record is appropriate where the information sought to be sealed is confidential, private or proprietary in nature. (See HB Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879.) Here, Plaintiffs move to seal the parts of the Petition that refer to the settlement to protect Plaintiffs’ privacy interest in their respective settlement amounts, in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement. (Motion, Braugh Decl. (“Braugh Decl.”) ¶5.) A contractual agreement not to disclose the settlement is an overriding interest that supports sealing the Petition. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) This overriding interest in the confidential terms of the settlement agreement supports sealing those parts of the Petition that would make those terms part of the public Court record.

The Court also finds that more than a substantial probability exists that Minor Plaintiff’s interest in the confidentiality of the settlement terms will be prejudiced if relevant parts of the Petition are not sealed. If the petition to approve the compromise reached on behalf of Minor Plaintiff is not sealed, he will be the only plaintiff in this action who is not afforded the protection of the settlement agreement’s confidentiality provisions. (Braugh Decl. ¶6.) Minor Plaintiff also has an overriding interest in having the settlement succeed, which is more likely if Defendant General Motors is assured the terms of the settlement will not be reported to the press. (Braugh Decl. ¶6.) The proposed sealing is also narrowly tailored, as it is directed only towards the parts of the Petition that mention the settlement amounts. (Braugh Decl. ¶¶7-8.)

Finally, there is no less restrictive means by which to protect the confidential settlement agreement because it necessary for Plaintiffs to seek the Court’s approval of the settlement made on behalf of Minor Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

DATED: September 4, 2014

_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court