Cortina v. R & D Metal Fabricators Inc.

Plaintiff Alvaro Cortina moves to seal a settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant R&D Metal Fabricators, which plaintiff lodged conditionally under seal in support of his motion approval of a PAGA settlement. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to seal is denied. 4

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open. Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(c). A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(a). The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. Id. A party requesting that a court record be filed under seal “must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b)(1). “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Id.

A court may order a record be filed under seal only if the court 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. Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(d). An order sealing a record must specifically state the facts that support the findings, and 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. Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(e)(1). All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file. Id.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration accompanying the motion to seal states that the settlement agreement should be sealed because “[t]he parties agreed, as a material term of the individual settlement, that this agreement and all information pertaining to it remain confidential.” Solmer Declaration (ROA 72) ¶ 3. Counsel’s declaration does not state facts sufficient to justify sealing the settlement agreement.

As an initial matter, as stated above, a court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(a); see also McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 36 (“the mere agreement of the parties alone is insufficient to constitute an overriding interest to justify sealing the documents”). In addition, a settlement agreement that has a confidentiality provision cannot be sealed unless there is a showing of serious injury which would result from public disclosure. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281-82. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that serious injury would result from public disclosure of the settlement agreement.