Case Number: BC506467    Hearing Date: October 31, 2014    Dept: B

Motion for Order Sealing Portions of Minor’s Compromise Petitions

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants, Michelin and General Motors, are liable in products liability and negligence for the wrongful death of Artur Melkonyan in a motor vehicle accident caused by defective tires.

The case has settled. An OSC regarding dismissal is set for November 18, 2014.

This hearing concerns the motion of Plaintiffs, Aramais Melkonyan and Milena Melkonyan, to seal a portion of their motions for approval of the compromise of their claims. These Plaintiffs are minors and they must obtain Court approval of the settlement of their claims. The Plaintiffs filed this motion to seek an order that would seal the portion of their motion for approval of the minor’s compromise in which they identify the terms of the settlement and the amounts of the settlement.

Under CRC rule 2.551, a record cannot be filed under seal without a Court order. Further, rule 2.551(b) requires a party to file a noticed motion to obtain an order sealing a record. The motion must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. The facts are necessary because the Court can seal a record only if the Court makes the following express factual findings under CRC rule 2.550(d):

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.

The Plaintiffs provide evidence that the parties entered into a confidential written settlement agreement which contractually binds the parties to maintain the confidentiality of the terms of the agreement, including the settlement amount. This agreement to keep the terms of the settlement confidential demonstrates that a potential overriding interest may exist to redact the settlement amount. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1278 (finding that the defendant had identified a potential overriding interest with the evidence of a binding contractual agreement not to disclose).

However, the mere fact that the parties entered into a contract and agreed between themselves to keep the terms confidential does not bind the Court. See e.g., Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen (3d Cir. Pa. 1984) 733 F.2d 1059, 1073 (holding that an overriding interest is based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest).

This case involves a claim that the Defendants are liable in products liability the wrongful death of Artur Melkonyan because they placed defective tires into the stream of commerce. The claim implicates consumer safety and the public policy in fixing responsibility in order to effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court seal only information pertaining to the amount paid to settle the case, e.g., terms of settlement that disclose the settlement amount, the total amount of attorney’s fees, the disposition of the proceeds of the settlement. The request does not seek to seal information regarding the merits of the claim, e.g., information of interest to consumers regarding the safety of the Defendants’ tires.

This indicates that sealing the record will not prevent the public from obtaining information regarding the safety of the Defendants’ products.
The requested order is narrowly tailored to serve the interest in settling the case. It does not seal consumer safety information from the public.

Further, the fact that the Plaintiffs are minors implicates a concern that they would be disadvantaged in seeking a settlement if they cannot obtain an order sealing the settlement amount. An adult would not need an order sealing the settlement amount because the adult would not need to file a motion to obtain approval for the settlement. If minors could not obtain an order sealing the amount in a motion for approval of a minor’s compromise, this could result in a defendant settling claims with adults, but not minors because the minors cannot keep the amount of the settlement confidential. An order sealing the amount of the settlement with the minors will ensure that the minors can resolve the same claims that adults can resolve. Accordingly, there is an interest in sealing the amount of the settlement because this will advance the interest of ensuring that minor plaintiffs are not disadvantaged in seeking a settlement.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion to seal the portions of the Plaintiffs’ motions for approval of their minor’s compromise regarding the settlement amount. The requested order seals portions pertaining to the amount paid by the Defendants and not to any information regarding the safety of its product.