This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 02:52:43 (UTC).

US SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS TOM SALGADO

Case Summary

On 02/27/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by US SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY against TOM SALGADO in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5569

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

US SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 75

SALGADO TOM

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6/13/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

6/28/2018: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/7/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

8/28/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

11/13/2018: Case Management Statement

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/31/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Case Management Statement

1/16/2019: Case Management Statement

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

1/28/2019: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Brief

1/28/2019: Brief

Minute Order

1/31/2019: Minute Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

2/27/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Lodging

3/28/2019: Notice of Lodging

Order

4/12/2019: Order

Minute Order

4/12/2019: Minute Order

Default Judgment

5/13/2019: Default Judgment

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/27/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

2/27/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. COMMON COUNTS

2/27/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. COMMON COUNTS

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Notice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Default Judgment; Filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 (( Entry of Default Judgment)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Order (re: Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (Original Probate & Fiduciary Bond Application and Indemnity Agreement); Filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 (( Entry of Default Judgment)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 (( Entry of Default Judgment)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 06/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. COMMON COUNTS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695569    Hearing Date: October 28, 2019    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Seal Records

Moving Party: Plaintiff U.S. Specialty Insurance Company

Resp. Party: None

Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exh. A. to the Notice of Lodging Original submitted March 27, 2019 is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff U.S. Specialty Insurance Company filed a complaint against Defendant Tom Salgado for breach of contract.

The Court entered default judgment against Defendant on May 13, 2019.

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to seal records of Tom Salgado.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order that records filed in this action be placed under seal pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Motion, p. 1:23-24.)

A. Relevant Law

A party that requests that a record or portion of a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing it. The motion must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1); Savaglio v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 597-601.) All parties that have appeared in the case must be served with a copy of the motion or application. Unless the judge orders otherwise, a party that already possesses copies of the records to be sealed must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).)

The moving party must lodge the record with the court in a separate envelope when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or it has been lodged previously. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4) and (d).) The lodged record is conditionally under seal pending the judge's determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d), a judge may order that a record be filed under seal only if the judge expressly finds facts that establish all the following:

(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 (4) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must weigh the competing interests and concerns. This process necessitates (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public disclosure, (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) Therefore, in order to prevail on his motion, the moving party must present a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and the specific reasons for withholding them. (H.B. Fuller Co., 151 Cal.App.4th at 904.)

The California Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment provides “a right of access to ordinary civil trial and proceedings.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212.) The court further noted its belief that “the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system.” (Id., at 1210.) There is a presumption of openness in civil court proceedings. (Id., at 1217.) This presumption may apply to seemingly private proceedings. (Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 135 Cal. App.4th 1045, 1052 (divorce proceedings).) Therefore, it is up to this Court to determine if that presumption has been overcome.

Courts must find compelling reasons, prejudice absent sealing and the lack of less-restrictive means, before ordering filed documents sealed. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1246; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-09 n. 25; Champion v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 777, 787.) A proposed sealing must be narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, such as by sealing portions of pleadings or redacting particular text. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052, 1070.) An application to seal must be accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(b)(1).)

One compelling reason may include the right to privacy under the state constitution which extends to one's confidential financial affairs, and embraces confidential financial information in whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 503.)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff moves to seal “the Exhibit A to the notice of Lodging Original submitted on March 27, 2019 in response to the Court’s Tentative Ruling on USSIC’s request for entry of default judgment, which directed USSIC to submit the original contract to be cancelled by the Clerk (‘Notice of Lodging’).” (Motion, p. 3:2-6.) Plaintiff explains that “Exhibit A is a Probate and Fiduciary Bond Application (‘Bond Application’), which contains Defendant Tom Salgado’s Social Security number, Date of Birth, Driver’s License number, and a credit card account number.” (Id. at p. 3:7-9.) Plaintiff moves to seal the Exhibit A Bond Application in order “to protect the privacy of Defendants Tom Salgado.” (Id. at p. 3:10-11.)

Plaintiff argues that “Defendant has an overriding interest of protecting his social security number and as such, this interest overrides the public's right to access this information and supports sealing the record.” (Id. at p. 5:1-2.) Plaintiff maintains that Defendant has an overriding interest in having the record sealed because (1) Civil Code section 1798.85 requires persons to not make available to the public Defendant’s social security number; and (2) the public currently has access to Defendant’s social security number and there is a possibility that the public might obtain this information and thereafter compromise Defendant’s identity. (Id. at p. 5:1-11.)

Plaintiff explains that its “proposed sealing is narrow because the Bond Application in its redacted form is narrowly redacted to exclude from the public Defendant's social security number” and “the redacted version of Bond Application filed concurrently in USSIC's Motion to Seal in no way materially differs from the original Bond Application filed.” (Id. at p. 6:18-21.) Plaintiff attaches a copy of the redacted version to the Stevenson Declaration. (Id. at p. 6:21-22.) Plaintiff argues that it “has narrowly tailored the original Bond Application in the least restrictive manner possible . . . because the proposed sealing only encompasses one essential redaction: Defendant’s social security number . . . .” (Id. at p. 22-26.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently establishes that the information to be sealed regarding Defendant’s social security number, driver’s license number, and credit card number (see Stevenson Decl., Ex. A) relates to confidential personal and financial information, that there are no less restrictive means to protect this interest, and there is a substantial probability of prejudice to the interest if portions of the documents remain publicly filed.

Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exh. A. to the Notice of Lodging Original submitted March 27, 2019 is GRANTED. Plaintiff to prepare the Order.