Case Name: Ha M. N. Ton, et al vs. Calvin T. A. Nguyen

Case No.: 18CV333764

Defendant Calvin Nguyen brings this post-trial Motion to Seal Records. Although Defendant claims that the sealing request is narrowly tailored, it includes “the filings, exhibits, documents not excluding all financial information” to include bank information, email addresses, phone numbers, and exhibits filed or entered into the record during introduction of evidence. The justification for sealing is because disclosure of the fact that he was found by the Court to have made misrepresentations and converted funds would hamper “his future career growth” and his “promising future.” Defendant states that his interest is “not to hide the existence of this lawsuit from anyone” but only to seal essentially all of the “details” of the proceedings, exhibits, and allegedly confidential documents, etc., that are not described.

A court has the authority to 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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550.)

The California Rules of Court do not define what constitutes an “overriding interest.” Instead, this has been left to case law. Different “[c]ourts have found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute overriding interests.” (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298, fn.3 (quoting Judicial Council advisory committee comment to [former] Rule 243.1) (affirming lower court order unsealing certain records over defendants’ objection that the materials contained proprietary trade secrets); see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn.46 (overriding interests found in various cases include: protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment, privacy interests of a prospective juror during individual voir dire, protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to testify, protection of trade secrets, protection of information within the attorney-client privilege, and enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose, safeguarding national security, ensuring the anonymity of juvenile offenders in juvenile court, ensuring the fair administration of justice, and preservation of confidential investigative information).) None of these types of overriding interests is present here.

A declaration supporting a motion to seal should be specific, not conclusory, as to the facts supporting the overriding interest. If the court finds that the supporting declarations are conclusory or otherwise unpersuasive, it may conclude that the moving party has failed to demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 301, 305.) Here, the only overriding interest alleged by Defendant seems to be his potential embarrassment if members of the public become aware of the findings of the Court and evidence presented, that he was not credible at trial, that he made misrepresentations to the Plaintiff, and converted funds belonging to Plaintiff.

The motion to seal vaguely described documents and filings is DENIED. The Court finds that the motion does not adequately or specifically describe the documents to be sealed; Defendant has not established any overriding interest that overcomes the public right to access to court records; and the proposed sealing is not narrowly tailored.

The Court will prepare the Order.