JAMIE NAJERA VS OLIVER O TOMAS ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8224    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

   Plaintiff, Jamie Najera, an incompetent adult by and through his GAL, Bertha Gomez, filed this action against Defendants, Oliver O. Tomas, Quincy Adams, Debbie M. Cordier, and Lyft, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. Plaintiff, by and through his GAL and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Tomas and Lyft.

2. 3/12/20 Hearing

   On 3/12/20, the court heard Petitioner’s petition to approve the settlement of the action and Defendant’s motion to seal the petition and related records. The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice on the grounds that it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored. The court also noted the petition had already been filed, not under seal, with the court.

   The court denied the petition to approve the settlement without prejudice, noting that ; ; 12 and 18 of the petition were not filled out.

   The court discussed the probate attorney’s notes with Petitioner and Counsel and ordered Counsel to cure the deficiencies discussed at the hearing.

   Finally, the court took testimony from Plaintiff, Petitioner, and a representative from the annuity group.

3. Motion to Seal

   On 3/20/20, Defendant filed a renewed motion to seal. Defendant seeks an order permitting it to file a redacted petition for minor’s compromise and related documents and to file the complete document under seal.

   CRC 2.550(d) makes clear that records cannot be sealed without appropriate findings. It provides:

   The court may 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.

   A confidential settlement agreement may support sealing of court records. In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283, the court considered the issue of whether a confidential settlement agreement can be redacted at length. The court concluded, “We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).” The court went on noted that the parties’ interests can typically be protected by redacting, as opposed to fully sealing, the subject documents.

   The court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds they are appropriate and narrowly tailored, as they are designed so that the amount and terms of the settlement remain confidential, but the remainder of the petition is permitted to remain in the public file.

   The parties agreed that the settlement is confidential, and Defendant seeks an order sealing the petition and order approving the petition. Defendant contends the settlement, if revealed, could lead to improper conclusions, on the part of the public, concerning the amount of Lyft’s insurance policy and/or Lyft’s relationship with its drivers. Further, Defendant avers that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exists to protect the overriding interests at issue, as Defendant seeks only to seal those portions of the Petitions and related Proposed Order that directly or indirectly reference the terms of the confidential settlement, and the confidential settlement itself filed in support of Defendant’s prior 12/17/19 motion to seal.

   Here, the court finds the motion to seal establishes good cause to seal the subject confidential portions of the petition to approve the compromise, as the parties’ settlement is confidential in nature. The court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds they are appropriate and narrowly tailored, as they are designed so that the amount and terms of the settlement remain confidential, but the remainder of the petition is permitted to remain in the public file.

   The court grants the motion to seal the unredacted version of the petition to approve the compromise. The JA will ensure the petition, which was filed on 12/17/19, is removed from the public court file. The redacted petition, filed on 3/12/20, will remain in the court file.

   Defendant’s motion to file records under seal and remove sealable materials from the docket is GRANTED.

4. Petition to Approve Compromise

   The court previously found the settlement fair and reasonable. On 3/12/20, Plaintiff filed a Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action with the necessary information at ; ; 12 and 18, and there are no remaining defects in the petition.

5. Creation of Special Needs Trust

   Petitioner seeks to use the settlement funds to create a special needs trust. The court previously discussed the probate attorney’s notes with Counsel. The court will review the probate attorney’s notes, made in connection with the amended petition, with Petitioner and Counsel at the time of the hearing.

   Dated this 24^th day of July, 2020

Case Number: ****8224    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

   Plaintiff, Jamie Najera, an incompetent adult by and through his GAL, Bertha Gomez, filed this action against Defendants, Oliver O. Tomas, Quincy Adams, Debbie M. Cordier, and Lyft, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. Plaintiff, by and through his GAL and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Tomas and Lyft.

2. Motion to Seal

   The parties agreed that the settlement is confidential, and Defendant seeks an order sealing the petition and order approving the petition. Defendant contends the settlement, if revealed, could lead to improper conclusions, on the part of the public, concerning the amount of Lyft’s insurance policy and/or Lyft’s relationship with its drivers.

   The motion presents a novel procedural issue, because Petitioner did NOT lodge the petition under seal. Defendant filed a motion to seal records the same day that Petitioner filed the petition, which is currently in the public record. CRC 2.551(b) governs motions to seal records when the party who wishes to have the record sealed is also the party lodging the record. 2.551(c) governs motions to seal records when the party filing the documents is neutral to whether they are sealed, and the other party wishes to have them sealed. 2.551(c) applies here, as Petitioner appears to be neutral concerning whether the records are sealed, and Defendant wants the records sealed. Per 2.551(c), Petitioner was required to lodge the records under seal and then the Court was required to wait ten days to see if Defendant moved to seal before unsealing the records and placing them in the public record.

   The Court finds the motion to seal establishes good cause to seal at least a portion of the petition to approve the compromise, as the parties’ settlement is confidential in nature. A confidential settlement agreement may support sealing of court records. In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283, the court considered the issue of whether a confidential settlement agreement can be redacted at length. The court concluded, “We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).” The court went on, however, to note that the parties’ interests can typically be protected by redacting, as opposed to fully sealing, the subject documents.

   CRC 2.550(d) makes clear that records cannot be sealed without appropriate findings. It provides:

   The court may 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.

   In this case, Defendant seeks an order sealing the entirety of the petition and order on the petition. The parties did not make the necessary showing to seal the entire petition, as opposed to making necessary redactions only. The motion to file the petition under seal is therefore denied. The ruling is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to make a motion to redact portions of the petition. Defendant must file any such motion within ten days after today’s hearing.

3. Petition to Approve Compromise

   The Court will not set forth the terms of the settlement in this public order, as doing so would violate the purpose of the requested sealing order. The Court notes that ¶¶12 and 18(f) of the petition are not filled out, and are necessary to a resolution of the merits of the petition. The petition is therefore denied without prejudice.

4. Creation of Special Needs Trust

   Petitioner seeks to use the settlement funds to create a special needs trust. The probate attorney has reviewed the request, and the Court will discuss the probate notes with Counsel and Petitioner at the hearing on the petition. Petitioner must incorporate the probate attorney’s notes into any future petition to approve the settlement.

   Dated this 12^th day of March, 2020