2013-00151805-CU-PO

Purita Mendoza vs. City of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Complaint under Seal

Filed By: Ratinoff, Eric J.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the already filed Complaint is unopposed but is DENIED,
without prejudice.

On Oct. 7, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to order the complaint filed on Sept. 19,
2013 be permanently sealed as it contains highly sensitive information about the
plaintiff.

A court order is required pursuant to C.R.C., Rule 2.550 et seq. before the clerk may
file the document under seal. Under subsection (c), court records are presumed to be
open unless confidentiality is required by law. C.R.C., Rule 2.550(c).

The Court cannot seal any court records unless it makes the following express factual
findings: (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 public’s right to attend trials and
review court records arises from the First Amendment’s constitutional guarantee of the
public’s access to the courts, which extends to the evidence and testimony a court
considers in discharging its constitutional obligation to uphold and apply the law. NBC
Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1209; see, also,
Mercury Interactive Corp v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal. App. 4th 60. . Because First
Amendment constitutional guarantees are at stake, trial courts must tread carefully,
and may close courtrooms and seal court records only in limited circumstances.

Although allegations of inter alia, assault, sexual battery, stalking, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and elder abuse under Welf. & Inst. Code, sec. 15610, et seq.
may be upsetting to the elderly victim, there is no argument or evidence presented by
plaintiff that constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access
to court records. The motion does not sufficiently address the nature of any overriding
interest and the potential prejudice, if the record is not sealed.

Plaintiff has also failed to show that the requested sealing is narrowly tailored to protect an overriding interest and that there are no less restrictive means to achieve
the overriding interest, such as redacting certain specific portions of the complaint or
substituting a Doe for the name of the victim. The NBC case provides examples of
various interests that courts have acknowledged may constitute “overriding interests.” (
Id, at p. 1223).

As noted in the Advisory Committee Comment to CRC 2.550, courts have determined
that, in the proper circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and
privacy interests (when properly asserted and not waived) may constitute “overriding
interests.” The ultimate determination is on a case by case basis, and “overriding
interests” is not otherwise defined in the court rules. The suggestion that either or both
parties might be discomfited by disclosure is not an overriding interest sufficient to
overcome the public’s right of access.

Even where, as here, defendants fail to oppose the motion, that is insufficient to merit
sealing. Public access to civil proceedings serves to (i) demonstrate that justice is
meted out fairly, thereby promoting public confidence in such governmental
proceedings; (ii) provide a means by which citizens scrutinize and check the use and
possible abuse of judicial power; and (iii) enhance the truthfinding function of the
proceeding. NBC, supra, at p. 1219, fn. 41.

On the record presented, the Court cannot find that there exists an overriding interest
(CRC 2.550) that overcomes the right of right of public access simply because the
case was dismissed and the allegations are embarrassing or sensitive to the plaintiff or
to defendant. Court records are presumed to be open. As noted, this is not to say that
the court may not act, and courts may seal certain records upon the appropriate
showing, and in a tailored fashion.

On or after November 7, 2013, or as otherwise ordered by the Court, the Clerk is
directed to change the security status of the complaint to permit public viewing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.