Case Name: James West vs Alma Place Associates, L.P et al.

Case No.: 18CV333764

Plaintiff James West brought this Motion to File Documents Under Seal. The Motion originally came before the Court (Judge Peter Kirwan) on April 18, 2019 and the Court advised the moving party that the request to seal was overbroad and that Plaintiff failed to address the legal standards for sealing as to the specific documents referenced in the moving papers. The Court requested further briefing to identify exactly which documents met the standards for sealing pursuant to the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550. The Court indicated that the documents submitted by the Plaintiff were to remain conditionally under seal, but that additional information was needed to support the current motion. The Court further indicated that Judge Yew’s Jan. 26, 2015 Order would be sealed as it met the requisite requirements for sealing. The matter was continued to June 30, 2019 for further hearing and at the subsequent request of Plaintiff, the matter was again continued to July 25, 2019. On that date, the Court gave Plaintiff one last opportunity to submit additional information in support of his motion to seal, and continued the hearing to August 29, 2019. Before that hearing, Plaintiff filed a 170.6 peremptory challenge, and the case was reassigned to Department 9. The Court continued the matter to November 14, 2019, and a deadline of October 31, 2019 to file supplemental pleadings was set. Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing because he had jury duty. The hearing has now been set on January 23, 2019.

Plaintiff has failed, despite multiple opportunities and a delay of over nine months from April 18, 2019 to today, to file any supplemental information to support his motion to seal.

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).)

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.)

Further, where some material within a document warrants sealing but other material does not, the document should be edited or redacted if possible, to accommodate the moving party’s overriding interest and the strong presumption in favor of public access. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (e)(1)(B); see In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.) In such a case, the moving party should take a line-by-line approach to the information in the document, rather than framing the issue to the court on an all-or-nothing basis. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.)

As noted above, the motion has been continued multiple times to allow Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing or evidence to support the request for sealing that would address the legal standards for sealing as set forth above. Plaintiff has not submitted any further briefing or declaration as the Court allowed. Accordingly, the Court finds that except for Judge Yew’s Order of Jan. 26, 2015, which is ordered sealed by this Court, the motion to seal is otherwise DENIED.

The Court will prepare the Order.