Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records (including "all or a portion of any document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court, by electronic means or otherwise") are presumed to be open. California Court Rule 2.550(b) and (c).
However, "access to all court records is subject to a reasonable time, place and manner restrictions necessary to protect the safety and integrity of the exhibits, and minimize inspection from interfering with the court's need for access to the exhibits or the orderly operation of the clerk's office." (See, e.g., Bruce v. Gregory 65 Cal.2d 666 (1967).)
In addition, inspection "may also be conditioned upon payment of any costs determined by the court to be necessary to:
(California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.)
Courts may seal records upon a finding that:
A motion for court order must be made by any individual seeking to view exhibits from any superior court case, except for:
A motion for court order must be made by any individual seeking to reproduce exhibits from any superior court case:
If an exhibit is damaged during the reproduction, the individual seeking reproduction shall file an affidavit describing the event and resulting damage within five days of the damage. (General Order Re Exhibit Viewing and Reproduction, supra.)
The Order should be addressed to either:
If the application is denied, pending a hearing and determination by the court, court staff is not authorized to release any exhibits for viewing or copying.
California law authorizes the preparation of transcripts by court reporters and requires that be available for request upon payment of a fee, which shall be the same for either printed and electronic versions. (Gov. Code § 69954.)
"Any court, party, or person who has purchased a transcript may, without paying a further fee to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit pursuant to court order or rule, or for internal use, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other party or person." (Gov. Code § 69954(d).
[T]he work-product doctrine... generally privileges against disclosure the attorney’s work product and especially their 'impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories.' (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 120.) However, the work-product doctrine has been held not to apply against “a public prosecutor... when the fruits of his investigation become relevant to civil litigation to which he is not a party.” (Shepherd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 122, overruled on other grounds in People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96.)")
The legal issue is whether plaintiff is required to produce the transcripts pursuant to CCP § 2025.280(a) [service of a deposition notice under § 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to produce any document for copying] or whether Discovery Act (“the Act”) provision is trumped by Government Code § 69951 [any court, party, or person who has purchased a transcript may, without paying a further fee to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit pursuant to court order or rule, for internal use, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other party or person]…The Court has concluded that under these facts, the Act trumps the Government Code…[transcripts of] depositions are documents which are just as producible as any other underlying document in a case; it is readily available, simply produced, and easily copied; if produced at the time of the deposition, questions can be formulated and the answers provided; the case can move on. James Knell Et Al Vs Hub International Insurance Services In, 1413624 (5/7/2013).
Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process. (CBS, Inc. V. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651.)
To advance the purpose of government accountability, "the Public Records Act establishes a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency." (Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, 323.)
Support for a claim of nondisclosure must be found, if at all, among the specific exemptions enumerated in the Act. (Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p.901.)
The [California] Public Records Act provides for the inspection of public records maintained by state and local agencies. (See Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) The purpose of the [CA] Public Records Act is to fulfill the "fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state" to have access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business. (See Gov. Code § 6250; Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893, 901.)
Under the [Public Records] Act, records may be exempted from disclosure in two ways. First, materials may be exempt from disclosure pursuant to one of the express categorical exemptions set forth in § 6254 et seq. (Gov. Code § 6254.) Second, materials may be exempted from disclosure under the residual exemption set forth in § 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate, on the facts of a particular case, that the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. (Gov. Code § 6255.) The Act is broadly construed to further the people's right of access, and exemptions from disclosure must be construed narrowly. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 759, 765; Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(b).) The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency seeking to withhold the record. (Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469,476; Cal. Const, art. I, § 3(b).)
The California Superior Court is exempt from the CA Public Records Act; rather, written requests for Superior Court administrative materials can be made under California Rule of Court 10.500 ("Public Access to Judicial Administrative Records"), empowered by the California Government Code § 68106.2(g), which provides that the Court must "provide public access to non-deliberative and non-adjudicative court records, budget and management information." The Court may impose reasonable fees for administration and reproduction costs.
Rule 10.500 provides, inter alia, that public access be broadly construed, but the Rule "does not affect the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this state, nor does it limit or impair any rights of discovery in a criminal case."
CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3). The Motion is very narrowly tailored and seeks only to seal the specific dollar amount of the settlement. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(4). The remainder of the Answer will not be sealed. Finally, there does not appear to be a less restrictive means to keep the settlement amount confidential. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(5). BDJ’s Answer is to be marked as “Confidential” and it not to be released to the public. CRC Rules 2.550 and 2.551. The document will be marked as Confidential.
PEREZ V. SKEFFINGTON ENTERPRISES, INC.
30-2017-00927786-CU-PA-CJC
Aug 22, 2019
Orange County, CA
(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) There is no compelling public interest in knowledge of defendants' health issues. (b) "The overriding interest supports sealing the record." (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) Defendant's privacy rights in her own health issues. (c) "A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed." (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) "The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored." (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).)
JOHN MAYNARD VS. ROBIN BARNES
56-2010-00372604-CU-PO-VTA
Jun 07, 2011
Ventura County, CA
In addition, although that motion included a proposed order, the order did not contain the findings required by Rule 2.550(d)-(e)(1)(A). The proposed order submitted by Defendants on March 26, 2021 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.550(d)-(e)(1)(A), because it simply recites the conclusions set forth in Rule 2.550(d) without specifically stating any facts that support those findings.
LAVARIAS VS NEOPOST USA, INC.
RG19022652
Apr 06, 2021
Noël Wise
Alameda County, CA
Moving party has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the requirements of CRC 2.550. CRC 2.550 states in relevant part: (c) Court records presumed to be open Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.
MORRIS VS. NELSON + MORRIS, LLC
30-2016-00859264-CU-MC-CJC
May 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
(CRC, rule 2.550.) Unless confidentiality is required by statute or rule of court, California court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).)
DRESSED TO CLOSE, INC. VS. ARNTSEN
30-2018-01002671-CU-BC-CJC
Jul 29, 2019
Orange County, CA
CRC Rule 2.550(d)(1) and (2). There is a substantial probability that disclosing the amounts would prejudice party interest in confidentiality. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3). The Motion is very narrowly tailored and seeks only to seal the specific dollar amounts of the Order. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(4). Finally, there does not appear to be a less restrictive means to keep the monetary amount confidential. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(5). Having met each of the requirements of CRC Rule 2.550(d), the Court GRANTS the motion.
PEREZ V. SKEFFINGTON ENTERPRISES, INC.
30-2017-00927786-CU-PA-CJC
Feb 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
(CRC 2.550(d).)
PLATT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMI VS OPTUMRX, INC., A CALIFORNIA
RG20074100
Apr 08, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Rules Court, rule 2.550(d).) A contractual obligation not to disclose information in a settlement agreement can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 2.550. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283); Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106-107.) But the party seeking to seal the record must still demonstrate "a substantial probability that it will be prejudiced absent closure or sealing."
BARTOLONE VS MAX I GURTH TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO THE DELCARATION OF TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 3 1998
37-2020-00021860-CU-OR-CTL
Dec 03, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
The court must make express findings to support sealing a court record under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 (Rule 2.550).
RUIS RACING LLC VS CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD
20STCP00144
Jun 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”
ALFONSO AVINA VS MCDONALD?S CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV41608
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).
LEX FUNDING LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FX EXPRESS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19LBCV00693
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Promisory Note
Notice Of Joint Motion And For Order Pursuant To California Rules Of Court, Rules 2.550 And 2.551 Sealing The Courts Order Approving Compromise Of Pending Action Set for hearing on Monday, August 3, 2015, Line 3: PLAINTIFFS FREDERICK MAHAN and MARTHA MAHAN'S Joint Motion For Order Pursuant To California Rules Of Court, Rules 2.550 And 2.551 Sealing The Courts Order Approving Compromise Of Pending Action. Grant, no opposition filed and the motion complies with CRC 2.550 and 2.551.
FREDERICK MAHAN ET AL VS. CARNIVAL PLC, TRADING AS CUNARD LINE AS OPERATOR, ET AL
CGC13531762
Aug 03, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
(See CRC 2.550(e)(1)(A) [sealing order must “[s]pecifically state the facts that support the findings[.]”])
EAVES VS. ASHLAND, INC.
MSC16-00815
Nov 01, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
(See CRC 2.550(e)(1)(A) [sealing order must “[s]pecifically state the facts that support the findings[.]”])
EAVES VS. ASHLAND, INC.
MSC16-00815
Nov 29, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
Legal Standard California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rules 2.550 and 2.551 govern records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC Rule 2.550(c).) A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record. (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1).)
MY LE MAI VS MICHELLE NGUYEN
KC069769
Aug 02, 2019
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Generally, California Rules of Court (CRC) 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (CRC 2.550(a)(1).) However, “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (CRC 2.550(a)(3).) Objections to a discovery referee’s findings are discovery proceedings. Therefore, the court is not required to make the factual findings set forth in CRC 2.550(d) ordinarily required for sealing records.
MULLEN & HENZELL ET AL VS JEFFREY C NELSON ET AL
15CV00038
Jan 26, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
The parties still have not complied with the requirements of Rule 2.550.
COLEMAN VS. TRANS BAY
MSC19-00312
Feb 18, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Pursuant to CRC §§ 2.550, 2.551, there is therefore good cause to grant this motion, to maintain the confidentiality of the wage statement material (including social security numbers) inadvertently attached as Exhibit B to the Madoni declaration (Docket no. 207), supporting the pending Motion to Certify, herein. Generally, as to sealing of documents, see CRC §§ 2.550, 2.551, and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.
SALUCCI VS. AMADA SENIOR CARE, INC.
30-2015-00778081-CU-OE-CXC
Sep 15, 2017
Orange County, CA
The proposed order, however, does not comply with the requirements that the court “expressly find facts that establish” grounds for the order (CRC 2.550(d) [emphasis added]), and that the order “[s]pecifically state the facts that support the findings[.]” (CRC 2.550(e)(1)(B).)
HB CAPITAL VS. THE HAMILL REVOCABLE TRUST
MSN15-2036
Jan 23, 2017
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd.
MARIA SAO VS NEW HAMPSHIRE BALL BEARNGS, INC., ET AL.
20STCV45910
Mar 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
To allow sealing of the record, including redactions thereof, the court must make the necessary findings under California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551.
JOSEPH ROSS VS SCOTT M. KELLER, ET AL.
20STCV19228
Nov 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c) .)
GEORGETA BELDIMAN VS BHFC OPERATING, LLC
20STCV18823
Apr 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court evaluates the Motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.
FRANK M. VERLANDER JR VS. KERRY MURPHY
MSC18-00898
Jul 12, 2018
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
That fact is not enough to satisfy rule 2.550.
FERRER VS AMERIFLEX INC
RIC2002157
Jun 08, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Legal Standard California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 set forth specific criteria for permanently sealing court records. (See Cal.
PEDERSON V. APPLE, INC.
2012-1-CV-235530
May 03, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Rules of Court, rule 2.550.
PAUL KENDALL VS SCRIPPS HEALTH [E-FILE]
37-2013-00073680-CU-BT-CTL
Oct 04, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
LEGAL STANDARD A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the “opposition” is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. Even where the motion is not opposed, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550.
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, AN AGENCY OF THE S...
22CV006830
May 12, 2023
Alameda County, CA
The procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.
RYAN M DURKEE VS EXHALE SPA ET AL
BC544722
Aug 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the "opposition" is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. Even where the motion is not opposed, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER INC. VS GOLDE WELLNESS, INC.
RG21101137
Aug 22, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Notice Of Motion For Court Order Sealing Petition Pursuant To C.R.C. 2.550 And 2.551 On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, February 13, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 8. Plaintiffs' motion for order sealing petition pursuant to CRC 2.550 and 2.551: hearing required. The hearing will be at 9:45a.m. Plaintiffs must bring a proposed order to the hearing that complies with CRC 2.550 and 2.551. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.
BILLY D ROGERS VS. 3M COMPANY, FKA MINNESOTA MINING AND ET AL
CGC12276106
Feb 13, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
If Plaintiff filed a redacted version of its opposition papers with the clerk's office, either Plaintiff or Defendants must file a separate application to file those papers under seal pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. or those papers will subsequently be unsealed. (See Rule 2.550(b)(3)(B).)
LAVARIAS VS NEOPOST USA, INC.
RG19022652
Feb 12, 2021
Noël Wise
Alameda County, CA
Defendants AT&T and Christian Morelli Motion for an Order Sealing Videotape pursuant to Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 is DENIED. Motions to Seal and Unseal Records in both civil and criminal cases are governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 et seq. Under California law, unless confidentiality is required, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c).) Even an agreement by the parties to file documents under seal is insufficient.
ARZU VS. AT&T
30-2016-00880936-CU-PO-CJC
Sep 20, 2018
Orange County, CA
Rules Court, rule 2.550(d).) Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish the documents should be sealed. Plaintiff shall advise the court whether the document shall be unsealed no later than June 7, 2019. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) _____________________________________________ Defendants Randall Kay and Jones Day's Motion to Seal Documents Lodged with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is denied.
THE LAW OFFICES OF LINDA E OBRIEN INC VS KAY
37-2017-00000400-CU-NP-CTL
May 30, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d); McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th25, 32. The burden to make such a showing is on the party seeking to seal the documents. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894. This matter is continued to allow Defendant to submit further facts to satisfy its burden under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).
SIMS, SHARON ET AL V. SINGH, JOBANIT ET AL
21CV00759
Nov 01, 2023
Butte County, CA
Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551.
BOONE, ET AL. V. DUPONT RESIDENTIAL CARE, INC., ET AL.
30-2016-00856397-CU-PO-CJC
Mar 15, 2019
Orange County, CA
(Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(1).) Maintaining confidentiality of these records supports sealing the record in this discovery proceeding. (Id., rule 2.550(d)(2).) If the record is not sealed, Becton’s interest in the confidentiality of this information would be compromised and Becton may suffer competitive harm. (Id., rule 2.550(d)(3).)
PATRICK DIETZEN ET AL VS SIRIGEN INC ET AL
1397051
Jan 27, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff is to comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 in filing his unredacted version. Defendant is to give notice.
ML DOE V. DOE 1, A CORP.
30-2019-01074147
Sep 29, 2020
Orange County, CA
California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 govern the sealing of court records.
JANE ROE VS. JOHN DOE ET AL
20CV364608
Jun 10, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d); see also NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1218.) The Court has a "considerable amount of discretion in deciding whether to seal or unseal portions of a judicial record." (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 292, 295). The Court will sign the proposed order (ROA # 470) at the hearing of this Motion.
MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]
37-2014-00020192-CU-BT-CTL
Aug 30, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision¿(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”¿¿Nevertheless,¿a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551.¿¿California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision¿(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.
TERRAH HAFFNER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS GONZALO ROSALES ORTIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
20STCV17808
May 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision¿(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”¿¿Nevertheless,¿a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551.¿¿California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision¿(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.
TERRAH HAFFNER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS GONZALO ROSALES ORTIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
20STCV17808
May 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In Witkin the author clearly summarized that C.R.C., Rules 2.550 and 2.551 apply to trial court records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. They do not apply to discovery motions and records in discovery proceedings but, they do apply to discovery materials used at trial or submitted for adjudication of matters other than discovery proceedings. (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(a).) 2 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Courts § 42 (2008).
HALE VS LISTREPORTS, INC.
30-2017-00914611-CU-WT-CJC
Dec 14, 2018
Orange County, CA
Nevertheless, the Court evaluates the Motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.
ALBERT SEENO, JR. VS. ALBERT SEENO, III
C22-01746
Dec 21, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
ANALYSIS California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 relate to “records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order,” and “record” is defined as “all or a portion of a document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court.” (Cal. Rules Court, rule 2.550(a)(1), (b)(1).) But “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (Id., rule 2.550(a)(3).)
LANDEN BARETTE ET AL VS BLUE SHIELD OF CA
BC697564
Feb 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
The Motion is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2551.
PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ALEXANDER FREEMAN
22STLC05168
Dec 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
STANDARD A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the "opposition" is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. Even where the motion is not opposed, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550.
ALSAYYAD VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RG18926551
Aug 16, 2021
Alameda County, CA
The opposition paper correctly notes that CRC 2.550 et seq. is not applicable to discovery motions. Unlike other materials, there is no right of public access to, and hence no need to seal, discovery materials filed or lodged in court in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. (CRC 2.550(a)(3).) Therefore, materials lodged with the court in connection with discovery motions are generally exempt from public access.
Roe 1 vs Defendant Doe 1
Nov 22, 2016
Orange County, CA
(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).
LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL
BC683396
Mar 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The opposition paper correctly notes that CRC 2.550 et seq. is not applicable to discovery motions. Unlike other materials, there is no right of public access to, and hence no need to seal, discovery materials filed or lodged in court in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. (CRC 2.550(a)(3).) Therefore, materials lodged with the court in connection with discovery motions are generally exempt from public access.
Roe 1 vs Defendant Doe 1
Sep 13, 2016
Orange County, CA
Notice Of Motion For Court Order Sealing Petition Pursuant To C.R.C. 2.550 And 2.551 On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, February 11, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 2. Plaintiffs? motion for order sealing petition pursuant to CRC 2.550 and 2.551 is continued to February 13, 2014 per plaintiffs? amended notice. = (503/TLJ)
BILLY D ROGERS VS. 3M COMPANY, FKA MINNESOTA MINING AND ET AL
CGC12276106
Feb 11, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Even in the absence of any opposition evidence or argument, the Court has an obligation to review the motion and seal only those documents that meet the requirements of C.R.C. 2.550(d). (In re Marriage of Nicholas, 186 Cal.App.4th at 1578 ("Parties no longer can stipulate ... to seal certain records from public view").) C.R.C. 2.550(d) and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.
REIMANN VS BRACHFELD
RG10529702
Jun 26, 2019
Alameda County, CA
Notice Of Motion And Motion To File Reply Brief And Supporting Documents Under Seal Pursuant To Crc 2.550 And 2.551 SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, MARCH O2, 2007, LINE 9. PLAINTIFF PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC. AND, PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS (USA) INC.'S Motion To File Reply Brief And Supporting Documents Under Seal Pursuant To C.R.C. SECTIONS 2.550 And 2.551 IS GRANTED. =(302/PJM)
PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC ET AL VS. SIRNA THERAPEUTICS INC ET AL
CGC06450694
Mar 02, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
A motion to seal under C.R.C. 2.550 is different from most motions because the "opposition" is not really the opposing party but the people of the State of California and their interest in an open and transparent judicial system. C.R.C. 2.550(c) states, "Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open." See also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178.
PLATT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMI VS OPTUMRX, INC., A CALIFORNIA
RG20074100
Apr 08, 2021
Alameda County, CA
The proposed order submitted with the moving papers does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(e), because it recites neither the findings required by Rule 2.550(d) nor the facts supporting those findings. By no later than December 21, FS shall electronically lodge with the clerk’s office a revised proposed order that complies with the requirements of Rule 2.550(e), and specifically states the facts supporting the required findings.
HERNANDEZ VS OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RG19047090
Dec 21, 2022
Alameda County, CA
Rules Court, rule 2.550(d). A contractual obligation not to disclose information in a settlement agreement can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 2.550. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283); Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106-107.) But the party seeking to seal the record must still demonstrate "a substantial probability that it will be prejudiced absent closure or sealing."
SMITH VS HUNT & HENRIQUES INC [E-FILE]
37-2017-00001062-CU-NP-CTL
May 02, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(CRC Rule 2.550(c).) However, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550-2.551. “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b).)
JAQUAY THOMAS VS HNJ STARFISH, DBA HOT N' JUICY CRAWFISH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV01147
Oct 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
(C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(1).) (b) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(2).) (c) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(3).) (d) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(4).) (e) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (C.R.C., Rule 2.550(d)(5).) (4) What Constitutes an “Overriding Interest?”
JUSTIN MORGENTHALER ET AL VS JUAN ANTONIO HAROMARTINEZ ET AL
BC685348
Sep 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Rule 2.550(e). In addition, it must prepare a draft of an order that comports with Rule 2.550(e).
COZZITORTO VS. AAA
MSC13-02656
Jun 09, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551.
NEWBERRY VS. KADENWOOD, LLC
30-2021-01182162
Mar 23, 2021
Orange County, CA
The motion is unopposed and defendant demonstrates good cause for the relief pursuant to CRC 2.550 et seq. Defendant shall prepare a proposed order that complies with CRC 2.550(d). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.
STRATEGYN HOLDINGS, LLC ET AL VS. JAMES M HAYNES III ET AL
CGC15544093
Apr 12, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
No opposition filed and good cause shown under CRC 2.550 et seq. Plaintiff shall prepare an order that sets forth the findings of CRC 2.550(d) and complies with CRC 2.550(e). Effective Monday, June 28, 2021, for the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, attorneys and parties may appear either in person in Department 302 or remotely by videoconference using Zoom.
BAILEY LIM VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CGC20582481
Sep 23, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
As to other information, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to permit moving party to submit a supplemental declaration to address the factors set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d). The original Declaration of Thomas N. Fitzgibbon did not adequately address with facts sufficient to justify the sealing [CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1)], especially the factor that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3).
DANIEL MEYEROV VS MARK FRIEDMAN ET AL
BC651099
Sep 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
As to other information, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to permit moving party to submit a supplemental declaration to address the factors set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d). The original Declaration of Thomas N. Fitzgibbon did not adequately address with facts sufficient to justify the sealing [CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1)], especially the factor that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. CRC Rule 2.550(d)(3).
DANIEL MEYEROV VS MARK FRIEDMAN ET AL
BC651099
Oct 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(2); see In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 298–299 [“a mandatory confidentiality requirement … is imposed … in actions initiated pursuant to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act for misappropriation of trade secrets”].)
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. TWIST BIOSCIENCE CORP., ET AL.
16CV291137
Oct 22, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
S Motion To File Supplemental Items, Submitted Pursuant To Judge Mahoney'S Request, Re PLAINTIFFS' Motion For Preliminary Injunction Under Seal Pursuant To C.R.C 2.550 And 2.551: A HEARING IS REQUIRED. =(302/PJM)
PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC ET AL VS. SIRNA THERAPEUTICS INC ET AL
CGC06450694
Mar 07, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
(CRC 2.550(d).) However, rule 2.550 does not apply to “discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3); see also Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 100 [discovery documents attached to filed complaint were not subject to a presumptive right of access, where not used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication.].)
JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL
BC577990
Apr 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Ct. 2.550. Counsel for the plaintiff is required to prepare a proposed order which recites the findings required by Cal. R. Ct. 2.550 and specifies the document to be sealed (i.e., the complaint) and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing.=(302/EPS)
METALLICUS,INC. VS. JENNIFER SUM
CGC20585831
Apr 05, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
The Court agrees with Tyler Mall that it has met the first three prongs of Rule 2.550(d). The Court finds that the need to keep private its security protocols are substantial, and the need to keep this information private overrides any public interest.
HORN VS TGI FRIDAY'S INC
RIC1814823
Dec 02, 2020
Riverside County, CA
In response to this opinion, the Courts issued CRC rules 2.550 and 2.551 to establish a standard and procedures for Courts to use when a request is made to obtain the order required by NBC Subsidiary to seal a record.
Y H VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC562719
Oct 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court has reviewed the Stipulation and Protective Order filed September 27, 2021, which provides for the parties to file Confidential Material under seal in accordance with, inter alia, Rules 2.550 and 2.551 of the California Rules of Court. (9/27/2021 Prot. Order ¶ 8.)
STEPHENSON VS. CITY OF RICHMOND
MSC20-00845
Oct 05, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551; Misenti decl., ¶ 9, Exhibit I; Reply, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff failed to file a motion or an application for an order sealing the document. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) Moreover, plaintiff did not address the factors in California Rule of Court, rule 2.550(d). Accordingly, the Court cannot make the express factual findings as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)
MCDONALD VS. CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
CV-2020-729
Dec 16, 2021
Yolo County, CA
SECTIONS 2.550 And 2.551 IS CONTINUED TO MARCH 26, 2007; TO BE HEARD WITH OTHER SEALING MATTERS. =(302/PJB)
PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC ET AL VS. SIRNA THERAPEUTICS INC ET AL
CGC06450694
Mar 12, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) The requirements for an order sealing records are set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e). The order must specifically state the facts that support the findings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e)(1)(A); Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 84.) A failure to make the required findings will render the order deficient and sealing will not be supported. (Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)
MEDELLIN VS IKEA USA WEST INC [E-FILE]
37-2017-00003513-CU-NP-CTL
Apr 12, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
APPLICABLE LAW The Racing Board relies upon California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subdivision (d) [Rule 2.550], as the legal basis for this motion. The court disagrees Rule 2.550 is controlling here. The issue is whether for purposes of litigation how documents ought to be handled, and whether they should be deemed confidential for handling purposes. Rule 2.550, however, addresses whether documents filed in court should be deemed sealed and not subject to public view.
RUIS RACING LLC VS CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD
20STCP00144
Sep 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c) [“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].) Although that right is not absolute, the moving party has the burden to meet the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551.
JEONG, ET AL. V. COSTA ARANCIONE, LLC, ET AL.
30-2019-01070144
Mar 12, 2021
Orange County, CA
Rules of Court 2.550(d). The application and points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff is insufficient for the court to make these findings. Plaintiff is directed to file a motion in compliance with Rule 2.550 substantiated with evidence for an order sealing records. Moving party to give notice.
SCOTT GLASSGOLD ET AL VS BRICKS AND SCONES ET AL
BC698911
Apr 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Any proposed order must comply with rule 2.550(d) and (e) as well as 2.551(e) of the California Rules of Court.
IN THE MATTER OF ALEMAN, JOSE LUIS PACHECO
CV-23-006953
Jan 31, 2024
Stanislaus County, CA
Ct. 2.550 and 2.551 are met. Counsel for Oracle is required to prepare a proposed order which states that the motion was not opposed and makes the requisite findings under Cal. R. Ct. 2.550 and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing. =(302/EPS)
BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. VS. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. ET AL
CGC19572474
Mar 09, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
Defendant is directed to submit a proposed order which reflects the required findings set forth in Rule 2.550(d).
D'ANGELO SANTANA VS RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL-SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]
37-2014-00022411-CU-MT-CTL
Oct 18, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)
VEEVA SYSTEMS INC VS IQVIA INC
RG21111679
Feb 07, 2024
Alameda County, CA
DISCUSSION The court denies Defendants motion to seal without prejudice to renewing the motion upon a proper showing that permits the court to make the detailed findings that California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 requires.
RICHARD CONELL VS TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV21273
Apr 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Moving party is to submit a supplemental declaration addressing all factors set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d), especially (d)(3). Supplemental declaration is due September 12, 2019.
DANIEL MEYEROV VS MARK FRIEDMAN ET AL
BC651099
Aug 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
(CRC § 2.550(d).) The motion is GRANTED. There is no opposition.
PAUL TUZZOLINO VS WINDSOR TWIN PALMS HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV47447
Nov 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Generally, California Rules of Court, rules 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(1).) However, “[t]hese rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.” (Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).) The documents at issue are objections and responses in discovery proceedings before the discovery referee.
RESON A/S ET AL VS R2SONIC LLC ET AL
1342087
Feb 27, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).) Citing California Rule of Court Rule 2.550 and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, Defendants argue that the right of public access does not apply to settlement figures reflected in petitions for court approval of minor’s compromises. Defendants’ position is without merit.
WILSON CASTANEDA, ET AL. VS LYFT INC.,, ET AL.
19STCV35727
Sep 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(Rule 2.551(b)(4); see rule 2.550(b)(3) [a lodged record is a record that is temporarily placed or deposited with the court, but not filed]; 2.551(b)(4) & H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 501.) The trial court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it makes NBC Subsidiary's enumerated findings expressly. (Rule 2.550(d), italics added.)
DON E. PARRET VS WEBSTAR MARKETING GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV05624
Apr 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Rule 2.550 applies “to discovery materials that are . . . submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.” (CRC Rule 2.550(a)(3).) The Court thus proceeds to the factors enumerated above. The Court finds that insufficient argument has been presented to support sealing here, as the Court lacks a basis to make the requisite findings.
MCDONNELL ROOFING, INC. VS RUBEN QUEZADA, ET AL.
19STCV16247
Dec 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (c) states: “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” Nevertheless, a party may move to seal records pursuant to California Rule of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1) states: “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.
DAVID ALOMATSI VS DEANCO HEALTHCARE LLC
19STCV21741
Jan 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
CRC Rule 2.550 explicitly provides that the sealed records rules “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings,” but “do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3) (emphasis added).) The cases cited by Defendants—i.e., Overstock.com v.
LOUISE HOLLAND VS DANA CARL DENTZEL ET AL
BC699575
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
No opposition filed and plaintiff demonstrates good cause pursuant to CRC 2.550. The court will execute the proposed order, which complies with CRC 2.550(d) and (e). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. =(302/RU)
TAYLOR MILSAL VS. NOB HILL PROPERTIES, INC(DBA THE HUNTINGTON HOTEL) ET AL
CGC14538171
Dec 21, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiff'S Motion For An Order Sealing The Filing And Records Pusuant To California Rules Of Court 2.550 And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of An Order To Seal The Filing Motion Compliant Amended Compliant Replies Rebuttals Answers Demurrer And Any Other Motions And Documents Filed In This Case Matter on calendar for Wednesday, May 4, 2017, Line 7, PLAINTIFF RAYNARD DAVIS' Motion For An Order Sealing The Filing And Records Pusuant To California Rules Of Court 2.550 And Memorandum Of Points
RAYNARD DAVIS (PROVIDE ACCESS) VS. SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEYS GEORGE GASCON ET AL
CGC14539933
May 04, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
No opposition filed and plaintiff demonstrates good cause pursuant to CRC 2.550. The court will execute the proposed order, which complies with CRC 2.550(d) and (e). Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. =(302/RU)
EDWARD WATSON VS. CHRISTIAN TERRELL
CGC15548473
Dec 21, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
LEGAL AUTHORITY California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 2.550(c) states: “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” But a party may move to seal records pursuant to Rules 2.550-2.551. CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1) states: “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”
PETER KLEINBERG VS. LANDMARK DIVIDEND, LLC...ET AL
YC071851
Sep 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see¿ McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. ¿(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.) Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent open court policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-10.)
LANCE PETERSEN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV22153
Jul 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(CRC 2.550(d).) Pursuant to Rule 2.550(e), [a]n order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file. Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.
JANE BOVE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV43132
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Rules of Court 2.550(d). Court records are presumed to be open. Cal Rules of Court 2.550(d). The burden is on the moving party to show compelling reasons for sealing records. Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 308, 317. An agreement to keep the settlement terms confidential can constitute an “overriding interest” that supports redacting the settlement amount. Courts have recognized that binding contracts not to disclose are “overriding interests.” Publicker Industries, Inc. v.
JUSTIN FRIEDLANDER ET AL VS SARAH ERIKA RICE ET AL
BC708869
Feb 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The court must make express findings to support sealing under Cal Rules of Court 2.550.
MICHAEL TERRANOVA VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA ET AL
BC673195
May 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Because Plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.550, the motion is DENIED. The moving party is to give notice.
WILLIAM RICHARD OSBORN, , ET AL. VS ASBESTOS COMPANIES, ET AL.
22STCV23800
Aug 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant shall submit a form of order consistent with this ruling, and in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(e), within two weeks.
SIMS, SHARON ET AL V. SINGH, JOBANIT ET AL
21CV00759
Dec 13, 2023
Butte County, CA
CRC 2.550, 2.551. The court finds Plaintiff demonstrates that the overriding interest of protecting the confidentiality of the confidential information contained within Exhibit A to the complaint overcomes the right of public access to the record and that this overriding interest supports sealing of the record. CRC 2.550(d)(1) and (2). NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273.
PARKER VS METROMILE LLC
37-2022-00049770-CU-BT-CTL
Jul 21, 2023
San Diego County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.