Eric Gonzales vs A&S Coldplaning Inc
Case No: 1418416
Hearing Date: Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: File Under Seal

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of defendant A&S Coldplaning, Inc., to file documents under seal is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the following documents now lodged conditionally under seal: (1) exhibit A to the stipulation of plaintiff and defendant A&S Coldplaning, Inc., lodged on April 17, 2018; (2) the unredacted declaration of James P. Hart, Jr., lodged on March 8, 2019.

Background:

Plaintiffs Eric Gonzales and Diana Gonzales and defendant A&S Coldplaning entered into a stipulation, initially dated April 16, 2018, for the parties to arbitrate their claims subject to a maximum and minimum award to plaintiffs. (Hart decl., exhibit 1.) The maximum and minimum amounts are redacted from the public file version of the stipulation because the stipulation itself expressly provides that the arbitrator shall not be advised of the maximum and minimum amounts until the initial arbitration award has been made. (Ibid.)

The unredacted stipulation and proposed order was lodged with the court conditionally under seal on April 17, 2018. On April 19, 2018, the court entered its order on the stipulation which order vacated the then-pending trial date, tolled the running of the five-year rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, reserved jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award, and set a case management conference for April 24, 2019. The court’s order contains a redaction of the exhibit to the stipulation setting forth the maximum and minimum amounts and orders that the unredacted exhibit be filed under seal.

The original, unredacted exhibit remains in the court file as lodged conditionally under seal and not filed.

On March 8, 2019, defendant filed motion to file documents under seal. In support of the motion, defendant separately files a public-redacted version, and lodges conditionally under seal, the declaration of its counsel, attorney James P. Hart, Jr., which itself also includes the exhibit containing the confidential amounts of the maximum and minimum arbitration award.

No opposition or other response to this motion has been filed.

Analysis:

As an initial matter it must be noted that the motion now before the court appears superficially to request only an order filing under seal the Hart declaration that is lodged in support of this same motion. It is apparent from the state of the court’s records that the motion is intended to seek an order that also seals the April 17, 2018, lodged document that is the same document attached to the Hart declaration. The court deems this motion to address both such documents.

“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.” (Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)

The court’s order filed April 19, 2018, based upon the stipulation of the parties erroneously includes an order to file the April 17, 2018, lodged document under seal without including findings required by law. The court therefore reconsiders that order in connection with this motion.

“The court may order that a record be filed under seal 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.” (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

The only difference between the public-redacted version of the exhibits subject to this motion and the unredacted, confidential version of those exhibits is the redaction of the actual maximum and minimum amounts stipulated. The stipulation reasonably contains a provision that the maximum and minimum amounts not be disclosed to the arbitrator until after the initial arbitration award is issued. The court finds that there is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of the public to access the full stipulation because disclosure of the maximum and minimum amounts prior to the initial arbitration award would endanger the ability of the arbitrator to reach his or her conclusions unhampered by the knowledge of those amounts. The court finds that this overriding interest supports sealing the record so as to maintain the confidentiality of those amounts to protect the integrity of the arbitration process as stipulated. The court finds that if the record is not sealed, a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced by the public disclosure of the maximum and minimum amounts prior to the arbitration award. The court finds that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored because the only information redacted from the public versions of the documents is the maximum and minimum amounts. The court finds that no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest because of the potential prejudice from any public disclosure of these amounts while the arbitration is pending.

The court therefore grants the motion to file the documents under seal. The court notes, however, that the overriding interests upon which this analysis is based, as the only evidentiary basis for the order provided in the motion, is limited to sealing of this information prior to the initial arbitration award. Nothing in this order should be construed as determining that the maximum and minimum amounts should be sealed, or remain sealed, after the arbitration award is made, for example, in the event that either party files papers seeking to confirm, modify, or vacate the arbitration award. Insofar as those changed circumstances are not now before the court, the court does not express any opinion as to how such or other circumstances may alter the analysis of this order.