Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/22/2020 12:42 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Lopez,Deputy Clerk
John Sullivan SBN 204648
10857 Kling Street
North Hollywood, California 91602
(81 8) 769-7236
(818) 763-8860 facsimile
Attorney for Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, and Mark
Carpentieri
6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Louise Holland ) Case No: BC699575
Plaintiff )
) Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul
10 ) Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's
) Notice Of And Motion To Seal Entire
11 Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, Mark ) Court File
Guardinieri, Does 1-15 )
12 Defendants Date: March 5, 2020
)
13 ) Time: 1:30 P.M.
) Courtroom: 4
14 ) Conditionally Filed Under Seal
Rev No.: 623784346708
15 TO PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND THE COURT:
16 Please take note that on March 5, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 4 in the Los
17
Angeles County Superior Court located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles,
18
California, Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's will
19
move and hereby do move the court for an order sealing the entire court file in this action
20
21 for good cause shown. The motion will be based on this notice, the declarations of Dana
22 Carl Dentzel and Mark Carpentieri as well the accompanying exhibits and all other
23 evidence presented including at the hearing.
24
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities
I. Introduction And Facts
26
A. Procedural History And Basis For Motion
27
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File - 1
"Defendants" ) alleging violations of civil code sections relating to tenant rights, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and related claims arising out of Holland's allegations
concerning a tenancy she held at the property owned by Dana Carl Dentzel and Paul
Dentzel. The gravamen of the complaint was that Defendants cut electricity, water and
removed Holland's personal property as well as harass and intimidate Plaintiff in an
attempt to get Holland to leave Defendants'roperty. Defendants filed a motion to strike
portions of the complaint on September 11, 2018 relating to punitive damages. The court
granted the motion in part with leave to amend the complaint on November 27, 2018.
Thereafter on December 6, 2018 Holland filed an amended complaint.
10 After some discovery the matter was reported settled on September 3, 2019. In
connection with the settlement, the parties submitted a stipulation to the court sealing the
12 file. The court rejected the stipulation ordering that Defendants file a motion to seal the
13 file in conformity with the case NBC Subsidiary (KNBC, Inc.) v. Superior Coun', 20 Cal.
14 4th 1178 (1999) and California Rules Of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551.
15 Defendants now file a motion to seal the record. As explained in detail in the
16 declarations of Defendant Dana Carl Dentzel ("Dentzel") and Mark Carpentiedi
17 ("Carpentieri"), Defendants did not create the situation in which the Defendants found
18 themselves in after they acquired the property where Holland was residing. Dentzels
19 attempted do their best to work out a solution with Holland but Holland refused and filed
20 the instant lawsuit.
21 Defendants believe that Holland portrays Defendants'ctions in the worst possible
22 light and therefore the pleadings present a very misleading image of Defendants. The
23 Dentzels acquired the vacant property rift with holdover tenant and homeless issues.
24 Overwhelmed, the Dentzels did they best they could clear the property. The complaint
25 makes the Dentzels appear to be heartless and ruthless in seeking Holland's eviction.
26 The Dentzels feel that nothing could be further from the truth. Carpentieri is a security
27 professional for forty years and denies that he treated Holland in the manner she alleges
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File 2
—
inthe complaint. Carpentieri denies that he insulted, demeaned or intended to injure
Holland. The Defendants agreed to settle the dispute with the understanding that Holland
would agree to seal the file. Otherwise Defendants would have continued to litigate this
matter so that Defendants could have defended their professional and personal
reputations.
The court required that the motion to seal comport with first amendment standards
with a presumption that court files are to remain open. Defendants respectfully contend
that since the pleadings at issue in this action do not amount to documents that form the
basis of an adjudication that the standard for sealing this file is lower i.e. good cause and
10 that the court need not review the request under the heightened requirements under
California Rules Of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551. Defendants believe their declarations
12 establish the good cause necessary to seal the record and that the public interest in this
13 matter is de minimums so as to not outweigh Defendants'nterest in sealing the record.
14 B. Facts Relevant To Motion To Seal
15 In April of 2017 Dana Carl Dentzel and Paul Dentzel (collectively "Dentzels")
16 purchased property with a street address of 19008 Nordhoff Street in Northridge with the
17 intent to raze the structures on the property and eventually develop the property. See
18 Declaration Of Carl Dentzel ("Dentzel Decl.") f5 4-6. Before purchasing the property the
19 prior owner informed the Dentzels that there were numerous persons living there.
20 Dentzel Decl. ff 7. Dentzels asked the prior owner to remove all persons on the property
whether the persons were tenants or homeless people. Id. g 8.
22 Holland was living at the property in her personal trailer pursuant to a oral tenancy
23 with the prior owner who had caused Holland to be served with a notice to vacate the
24 property before the Dentzels acquired the property. + 9-10. Despite the notice to vacate,
25 Holland did not vacate the property prior the Dentzels acquiring the property.
g 11.
26 Following the acquisition of the property, the Dentzels hired Defendant Mark Carpentieri
27 to assist them in dealing with the homeless issue and the overseeing the departure of
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File - 3
hold over tenants at the property. g 12; Declaration of Mark Carpentieri ("Carpentieri
Decl."). Progress on securing the property took some time and remains ongoing. 5 13.
During the entire time the Dentzels'ave owned the property only Holland has refused to
leave the property voluntarily. 'll 14.
The Dentzels believe that Holland's complaint unfairly portrays the Dentzels as
insensitive landlords. tt15. According to the Dentzels, persons who might read the
complaint would draw a very negative inference about the Dentzels which would not be
accurate. $ 16. Dentzels strove to work with Holland to ensure a voluntary departure. tt
17. The Dentzels conducted themselves with the intention to get unauthorized persons to
10 leave the property voluntarily and never employed any illegal means. tt 18. To ensure
volunteer departures, the Dentzels paid persons staying at the property to leave. ff 19.
12 The Dentzels considered fighting Holland's claims but after discussion with advisors and
13 among themselves elected to avoid potential personal exposure and decided to settle
14 with the understanding that Holland would agree to seal the file. 5 20.
15 Mark J. Carpentieri is a security professional with forty years experience in both
16 the public and private sectors who was hired by the Dentzels to oversee security at the
17 property the Dentzels purchased. Carpentieri Decl. 5tt 4-5; Dentzel Decl ti 12.
18 Carpentieri has spent considerable time and effort to secure the property from
19 unauthoffized persons and that effort remains ongoing. Id. Carpentieri Decl. 7[ 6.
20 Carpentieii contends that Carpentieri treated Holland professionally and always
21 conducted himself consistent with security industry standards. 11 7. Carpentieri denies
that Carpentieri called Holland names or threatened her in any fashion. 9 8. Carpentieri
23 denies all allegations Holland has made against Carpentieri relating to cutting water or
24 electricity or removing personal property with the intention of forcing Holland to leave the
25 property. 5 8. Carpretiedi contends that he never treated Holland disrespecffully. 5ff 9-11.
26 Carpentieri feels that the allegations against him were placed there in an effort to
27 create an environment to push Defendants towards settlement rather then have to
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File 4 —
expend energy to disprove them. 5 12. Carpentieri maintains that Holland's allegations
2 against Carpentieri damage his professional reputation. 5 13. Carpentieri only agreed to
3 settle this action with the understanding that Holland would not object to a motion to seal
4 the record. fl 14.
II. Law Relatina to Sealina Cases
6 A. Common Law Right Of Access To Court Files
7 California common law like many jurisdictions in this country has long recognized
8 the public's right to access court files. Overstockcom, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, 231
9 Cal.App.4th 471, 483 (2014); citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589,
10 597 (1978). Courts presume that the right to access exists but the right may be overcome
11 by other interests of the parties to a particular litigation. Overstock.corn, Inc. v. Goldman
12 Sachs Group, 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483 (2014) When evaluating a request for sealing a
'13 file courts weigh the presumptive right of access against private litigants legitimate
interests. Id.; H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe, 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894 (2007). For documents
16 that do not form "a basis for adjudication" the law only require that a party seeking to seal
16 a record show good cause for its sealing. Overstock.corn v. Goldman Sachs Group, 231
Cal. App.4th 471, 486 (2014); Mercury Interactive v. Klein 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-107
18 (2007). Complaints are not thought of as documents that form a basis for adjudication. Id.
19 at 103.
20 Courts are permitted to seal records when courts are used to gratify personal spite
21 or for libelous statements or similar reasons. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435
22 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Courts in California are permitted to strike false, irrelevant or
23 improper material contained in a complaint.
24 B. Constitutional Right Of Access To Court Files And Rules Of Court Rules
2.550 and 2.551
25
For documents filed in actions involving a basis for adjudication, the constitution
26
requires additional considerations when a party seeks to seal a file. In the seminal case
27
of NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1178 (1999), the California
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File —
5
Supreme Court set the guidelines for what must be established in order to obtain an
order sealing the record. The court stated:
[B]efore substantive courtroom proceedings are closed or transcripts are ordered
sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that (i) there exists an
overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial
probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii)
the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding
interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding
interest.'d
at 1217-128.
California later adopted rules based on the holding in NBC Subsidiary found at
California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551. NBC Subsidiary and the court rules do not
10
operate or govern the rules relating to the sealing of court records circumstances
ll in all
but only where the court finds that the documents in question relate to documents that
form a basis for adjudication. NBC Subsidiary at 1208 footnote 25; Savaglio v. Wal-Mart
13
Stores, Inc., 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596 (2007).
14
15
III. Sealing The Record In This Action Does Not Require The Defendants To
Satisfy Constitutional Standards, Defendants Have Shown Good Cause And Even
16 Satisfy The Heightened Standard Thus Warranting The Granting Of The Motion To
Seal
17
A. Defendants Need Only To Establish Good Cause For Sealing The Record
18
Defendants seek the sealing of the court file which consists of a complaint, a
19
motion to strike, an amended complaint and a motion to compel production of
20
documents. None of these documents form "a basis for adjudication" so as to warrant the
21
heightened requirements of NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th
22
1178 (1999) and California Rules Of Court Rule 2.550 and Rule 2.551. Courts in
23
California have found that pleadings do not form a basis for adjudication. Overstock.corn
24
v. Goldman Sachs Group, 231 Cal. App.4th 471, 486 (2014); Mercury Interactive v. Klein
25
158 Cal.App.4th 60, 103 (2007). Without the heightened requirement of NBC Subsidiary,
26
courts only require good cause to seal a record along with considerations of public's right
27
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File 6 —
to access the files of court. Overstock.corn v. Goidman Sachs Group, 231 Cal. App.4th
471, 486 (2014); Mercury Interacti ve v. Kiein 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-107 (2007).
B. Defendants Have Demonstrated Good Cause
Holland's allegations against the Defendants were never tested in court. Instead
the Defendants elected to settle the matter early. Defendants settled the matter with the
understanding from Holland that Holland would stipulate to the sealing of the file in this
case. If there was no agreement from Holland, Defendants would have continued to
litigate this action. Defendants deny Holland's allegations; Holland's allegations stand in
the court as allegations and nothing more. Defendants and each of everyone of them feel
10 that the allegations improperly cast them in a very unfavorable light and Defendants feel
that the allegations could hurt Defendants reputations unjustifiably. Defendants have a
12 legitimate and an important interest in seeing that the records are sealed.
13 Holland's allegations do not relate to a matter of significant importance to the
14 public. The central allegation is that Defendants cut Holland's electricity, water and
15 removed property belonging to Holland in an attempt to get Holland to move. This matter
16 involves private parties not in the public eye. The public's interest in these proceedings is
17 low. The countervailing public interest when compared to potential harm to Defendants
18 balances in favor of sealing the record. Defendants have met the burden of
demonstrating good cause to seal the record.
20 Even if the court determined that Defendants must satisfy California Rules Of
21 Court 2.550 and 2.551 respectively, sealing would still be warranted. Defendants have
22 already addressed that there are overriding interests supporting the sealing i.e. injury to
23 professional and personal reputation based on unproven allegations and that Defendants
24 agreed to seal the case only with the understanding that the Holland would agree to seal
25 the record. The public has very little interest in a case involving allegations by a private
26 person living in her own trailer that has had that person's electricity, power or things
27 taken away in an attempt to get the person to vacate the property that never went to trial
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File 7
—
or was tested in any meaningful sense. Prejudice is present in the potential harm to
Defendants reputation which took years to establish. As to less restrictive means, only
the pleadings are involved in this case as no facts have been adjudicated. Defendants
are not looking to seal a large amount of documents. The request to seal is limited as a
result of a small record v. Defendants have met the standard of California Rules of Court
Rules 2.550 and 2.551.
Respectfully Submitted,
10
11
John Sullivan
12 Attorney For Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants'otion To Seal File - 8
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, the undersigned, declare that am, and was at the time of service of the papers
I
herein referred to, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action or
proceeding. My business address is 10857 Kling Street, North Hollywood, California
91602 which is in the county in which the within-mentioned mailing occurred. am I
familiar with the practice at my place of business for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service on the same day in
the ordinary course of business.
On January 22, 2020 I served the following documents:
Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's Notice Of
And Motion To Seal
Declaration Of Dana Carl Dentzel ln Support Of Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel,
Paul A. Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's Notice Of And Motion To Seal
Declaration Of Mark J. Carpentieri In Support Of Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel,
Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's Notice Of And Motion To Seal
By placing a true copy in a separate envelope for each addressee named below, with
the name:
Fredrick Stern
Law Offices Of Frederick Stern
16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500
Encino, California 91436
Farid Zakaria, Esq.
Bremer 8 Whyte
21215 Burbank Boulevard Suite 500
Woodland Hills, California 91367
And by sealing the envelope and placing it for collection via first class mail and mailing
with postage fully prepaid in accordance with ordinary business practices.
Executed on January 22, 2020 at North Hollywood, California.
Ideclare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
John Sullivan
Proof of Service
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/22/2020 12:42 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Lopez,Deputy Clerk John Sullivan SBN 204648 10857 Kling Street North Hollywood, California 91602 (81 8) 769-7236 (818) 763-8860 facsimile Attorney for Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, and Mark Carpentieri 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Louise Holland ) Case No: BC699575 Plaintiff ) ) Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul 10 ) Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's ) Notice Of And Motion To Seal Entire 11 Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, Mark ) Court File Guardinieri, Does 1-15 ) 12 Defendants Date: March 5, 2020 ) 13 ) Time: 1:30 P.M. ) Courtroom: 4 14 ) Conditionally Filed Under Seal Rev No.: 623784346708 15 TO PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND THE COURT: 16 Please take note that on March 5, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 4 in the Los 17 Angeles County Superior Court located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, 18 California, Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's will 19 move and hereby do move the court for an order sealing the entire court file in this action 20 21 for good cause shown. The motion will be based on this notice, the declarations of Dana 22 Carl Dentzel and Mark Carpentieri as well the accompanying exhibits and all other 23 evidence presented including at the hearing. 24 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities I. Introduction And Facts 26 A. Procedural History And Basis For Motion 27 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File - 1 "Defendants" ) alleging violations of civil code sections relating to tenant rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress and related claims arising out of Holland's allegations concerning a tenancy she held at the property owned by Dana Carl Dentzel and Paul Dentzel. The gravamen of the complaint was that Defendants cut electricity, water and removed Holland's personal property as well as harass and intimidate Plaintiff in an attempt to get Holland to leave Defendants'roperty. Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint on September 11, 2018 relating to punitive damages. The court granted the motion in part with leave to amend the complaint on November 27, 2018. Thereafter on December 6, 2018 Holland filed an amended complaint. 10 After some discovery the matter was reported settled on September 3, 2019. In connection with the settlement, the parties submitted a stipulation to the court sealing the 12 file. The court rejected the stipulation ordering that Defendants file a motion to seal the 13 file in conformity with the case NBC Subsidiary (KNBC, Inc.) v. Superior Coun', 20 Cal. 14 4th 1178 (1999) and California Rules Of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551. 15 Defendants now file a motion to seal the record. As explained in detail in the 16 declarations of Defendant Dana Carl Dentzel ("Dentzel") and Mark Carpentiedi 17 ("Carpentieri"), Defendants did not create the situation in which the Defendants found 18 themselves in after they acquired the property where Holland was residing. Dentzels 19 attempted do their best to work out a solution with Holland but Holland refused and filed 20 the instant lawsuit. 21 Defendants believe that Holland portrays Defendants'ctions in the worst possible 22 light and therefore the pleadings present a very misleading image of Defendants. The 23 Dentzels acquired the vacant property rift with holdover tenant and homeless issues. 24 Overwhelmed, the Dentzels did they best they could clear the property. The complaint 25 makes the Dentzels appear to be heartless and ruthless in seeking Holland's eviction. 26 The Dentzels feel that nothing could be further from the truth. Carpentieri is a security 27 professional for forty years and denies that he treated Holland in the manner she alleges 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File 2 — inthe complaint. Carpentieri denies that he insulted, demeaned or intended to injure Holland. The Defendants agreed to settle the dispute with the understanding that Holland would agree to seal the file. Otherwise Defendants would have continued to litigate this matter so that Defendants could have defended their professional and personal reputations. The court required that the motion to seal comport with first amendment standards with a presumption that court files are to remain open. Defendants respectfully contend that since the pleadings at issue in this action do not amount to documents that form the basis of an adjudication that the standard for sealing this file is lower i.e. good cause and 10 that the court need not review the request under the heightened requirements under California Rules Of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551. Defendants believe their declarations 12 establish the good cause necessary to seal the record and that the public interest in this 13 matter is de minimums so as to not outweigh Defendants'nterest in sealing the record. 14 B. Facts Relevant To Motion To Seal 15 In April of 2017 Dana Carl Dentzel and Paul Dentzel (collectively "Dentzels") 16 purchased property with a street address of 19008 Nordhoff Street in Northridge with the 17 intent to raze the structures on the property and eventually develop the property. See 18 Declaration Of Carl Dentzel ("Dentzel Decl.") f5 4-6. Before purchasing the property the 19 prior owner informed the Dentzels that there were numerous persons living there. 20 Dentzel Decl. ff 7. Dentzels asked the prior owner to remove all persons on the property whether the persons were tenants or homeless people. Id. g 8. 22 Holland was living at the property in her personal trailer pursuant to a oral tenancy 23 with the prior owner who had caused Holland to be served with a notice to vacate the 24 property before the Dentzels acquired the property. + 9-10. Despite the notice to vacate, 25 Holland did not vacate the property prior the Dentzels acquiring the property. g 11. 26 Following the acquisition of the property, the Dentzels hired Defendant Mark Carpentieri 27 to assist them in dealing with the homeless issue and the overseeing the departure of 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File - 3 hold over tenants at the property. g 12; Declaration of Mark Carpentieri ("Carpentieri Decl."). Progress on securing the property took some time and remains ongoing. 5 13. During the entire time the Dentzels'ave owned the property only Holland has refused to leave the property voluntarily. 'll 14. The Dentzels believe that Holland's complaint unfairly portrays the Dentzels as insensitive landlords. tt15. According to the Dentzels, persons who might read the complaint would draw a very negative inference about the Dentzels which would not be accurate. $ 16. Dentzels strove to work with Holland to ensure a voluntary departure. tt 17. The Dentzels conducted themselves with the intention to get unauthorized persons to 10 leave the property voluntarily and never employed any illegal means. tt 18. To ensure volunteer departures, the Dentzels paid persons staying at the property to leave. ff 19. 12 The Dentzels considered fighting Holland's claims but after discussion with advisors and 13 among themselves elected to avoid potential personal exposure and decided to settle 14 with the understanding that Holland would agree to seal the file. 5 20. 15 Mark J. Carpentieri is a security professional with forty years experience in both 16 the public and private sectors who was hired by the Dentzels to oversee security at the 17 property the Dentzels purchased. Carpentieri Decl. 5tt 4-5; Dentzel Decl ti 12. 18 Carpentieri has spent considerable time and effort to secure the property from 19 unauthoffized persons and that effort remains ongoing. Id. Carpentieri Decl. 7[ 6. 20 Carpentieii contends that Carpentieri treated Holland professionally and always 21 conducted himself consistent with security industry standards. 11 7. Carpentieri denies that Carpentieri called Holland names or threatened her in any fashion. 9 8. Carpentieri 23 denies all allegations Holland has made against Carpentieri relating to cutting water or 24 electricity or removing personal property with the intention of forcing Holland to leave the 25 property. 5 8. Carpretiedi contends that he never treated Holland disrespecffully. 5ff 9-11. 26 Carpentieri feels that the allegations against him were placed there in an effort to 27 create an environment to push Defendants towards settlement rather then have to 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File 4 — expend energy to disprove them. 5 12. Carpentieri maintains that Holland's allegations 2 against Carpentieri damage his professional reputation. 5 13. Carpentieri only agreed to 3 settle this action with the understanding that Holland would not object to a motion to seal 4 the record. fl 14. II. Law Relatina to Sealina Cases 6 A. Common Law Right Of Access To Court Files 7 California common law like many jurisdictions in this country has long recognized 8 the public's right to access court files. Overstockcom, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, 231 9 Cal.App.4th 471, 483 (2014); citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589, 10 597 (1978). Courts presume that the right to access exists but the right may be overcome 11 by other interests of the parties to a particular litigation. Overstock.corn, Inc. v. Goldman 12 Sachs Group, 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483 (2014) When evaluating a request for sealing a '13 file courts weigh the presumptive right of access against private litigants legitimate interests. Id.; H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe, 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894 (2007). For documents 16 that do not form "a basis for adjudication" the law only require that a party seeking to seal 16 a record show good cause for its sealing. Overstock.corn v. Goldman Sachs Group, 231 Cal. App.4th 471, 486 (2014); Mercury Interactive v. Klein 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-107 18 (2007). Complaints are not thought of as documents that form a basis for adjudication. Id. 19 at 103. 20 Courts are permitted to seal records when courts are used to gratify personal spite 21 or for libelous statements or similar reasons. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Courts in California are permitted to strike false, irrelevant or 23 improper material contained in a complaint. 24 B. Constitutional Right Of Access To Court Files And Rules Of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551 25 For documents filed in actions involving a basis for adjudication, the constitution 26 requires additional considerations when a party seeks to seal a file. In the seminal case 27 of NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1178 (1999), the California 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File — 5 Supreme Court set the guidelines for what must be established in order to obtain an order sealing the record. The court stated: [B]efore substantive courtroom proceedings are closed or transcripts are ordered sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that (i) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.'d at 1217-128. California later adopted rules based on the holding in NBC Subsidiary found at California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551. NBC Subsidiary and the court rules do not 10 operate or govern the rules relating to the sealing of court records circumstances ll in all but only where the court finds that the documents in question relate to documents that form a basis for adjudication. NBC Subsidiary at 1208 footnote 25; Savaglio v. Wal-Mart 13 Stores, Inc., 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596 (2007). 14 15 III. Sealing The Record In This Action Does Not Require The Defendants To Satisfy Constitutional Standards, Defendants Have Shown Good Cause And Even 16 Satisfy The Heightened Standard Thus Warranting The Granting Of The Motion To Seal 17 A. Defendants Need Only To Establish Good Cause For Sealing The Record 18 Defendants seek the sealing of the court file which consists of a complaint, a 19 motion to strike, an amended complaint and a motion to compel production of 20 documents. None of these documents form "a basis for adjudication" so as to warrant the 21 heightened requirements of NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 22 1178 (1999) and California Rules Of Court Rule 2.550 and Rule 2.551. Courts in 23 California have found that pleadings do not form a basis for adjudication. Overstock.corn 24 v. Goldman Sachs Group, 231 Cal. App.4th 471, 486 (2014); Mercury Interactive v. Klein 25 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 103 (2007). Without the heightened requirement of NBC Subsidiary, 26 courts only require good cause to seal a record along with considerations of public's right 27 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File 6 — to access the files of court. Overstock.corn v. Goidman Sachs Group, 231 Cal. App.4th 471, 486 (2014); Mercury Interacti ve v. Kiein 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-107 (2007). B. Defendants Have Demonstrated Good Cause Holland's allegations against the Defendants were never tested in court. Instead the Defendants elected to settle the matter early. Defendants settled the matter with the understanding from Holland that Holland would stipulate to the sealing of the file in this case. If there was no agreement from Holland, Defendants would have continued to litigate this action. Defendants deny Holland's allegations; Holland's allegations stand in the court as allegations and nothing more. Defendants and each of everyone of them feel 10 that the allegations improperly cast them in a very unfavorable light and Defendants feel that the allegations could hurt Defendants reputations unjustifiably. Defendants have a 12 legitimate and an important interest in seeing that the records are sealed. 13 Holland's allegations do not relate to a matter of significant importance to the 14 public. The central allegation is that Defendants cut Holland's electricity, water and 15 removed property belonging to Holland in an attempt to get Holland to move. This matter 16 involves private parties not in the public eye. The public's interest in these proceedings is 17 low. The countervailing public interest when compared to potential harm to Defendants 18 balances in favor of sealing the record. Defendants have met the burden of demonstrating good cause to seal the record. 20 Even if the court determined that Defendants must satisfy California Rules Of 21 Court 2.550 and 2.551 respectively, sealing would still be warranted. Defendants have 22 already addressed that there are overriding interests supporting the sealing i.e. injury to 23 professional and personal reputation based on unproven allegations and that Defendants 24 agreed to seal the case only with the understanding that the Holland would agree to seal 25 the record. The public has very little interest in a case involving allegations by a private 26 person living in her own trailer that has had that person's electricity, power or things 27 taken away in an attempt to get the person to vacate the property that never went to trial 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File 7 — or was tested in any meaningful sense. Prejudice is present in the potential harm to Defendants reputation which took years to establish. As to less restrictive means, only the pleadings are involved in this case as no facts have been adjudicated. Defendants are not looking to seal a large amount of documents. The request to seal is limited as a result of a small record v. Defendants have met the standard of California Rules of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551. Respectfully Submitted, 10 11 John Sullivan 12 Attorney For Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants'otion To Seal File - 8 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, the undersigned, declare that am, and was at the time of service of the papers I herein referred to, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action or proceeding. My business address is 10857 Kling Street, North Hollywood, California 91602 which is in the county in which the within-mentioned mailing occurred. am I familiar with the practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. On January 22, 2020 I served the following documents: Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's Notice Of And Motion To Seal Declaration Of Dana Carl Dentzel ln Support Of Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul A. Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's Notice Of And Motion To Seal Declaration Of Mark J. Carpentieri In Support Of Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark J. Carpentieri's Notice Of And Motion To Seal By placing a true copy in a separate envelope for each addressee named below, with the name: Fredrick Stern Law Offices Of Frederick Stern 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500 Encino, California 91436 Farid Zakaria, Esq. Bremer 8 Whyte 21215 Burbank Boulevard Suite 500 Woodland Hills, California 91367 And by sealing the envelope and placing it for collection via first class mail and mailing with postage fully prepaid in accordance with ordinary business practices. Executed on January 22, 2020 at North Hollywood, California. Ideclare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. John Sullivan Proof of Service