Motion to Place Documents Under Seal
Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; Sabicer v. Ford Motor Company (C.D. Cal. 2019) 362 F.Supp.3d 837, 840 [elements]; Defendant Ken Grody’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (DSS) 12-14.)
Plaintiff failed to meet his shifted burden to show a triable issue of fact. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 851 [burden]; Response to DSS 12-14; Webster v. Claremont Yoga (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 284, 288- 289 [the plaintiff’s failure to present expert testimony to contradict defense expert’s opinions entitles the defendant to summary judgment].) To the extent Plaintiff argues there are triable issues as to the “negligent diagnosis, inspection and release” of the subject vehicle, these facts are not alleged in the Complaint.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 70-72; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 74 [the pleadings determine the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion].)
Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is DENIED because the information sought is irrelevant to the issues raised by this motion and Plaintiff lacked diligence in discovering facts earlier. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (h).)
Defendant Ken Grody shall prepare a proposed judgment within 10 days and give notice.
211 Aghawani vs. Before the Court is a Motion to Place Documents Vershinin Under Seal filed by plaintiff Lamis Aghawani. The Dental hearing is CONTINUED to August 17, 2026 at Corporation 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24, as set forth herein.
A party requesting 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.) The instant motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §367.3. Plaintiff states she is “an active participant in the Secretary of State’s confidential address program, Safe at Home.” (ROA 62.) She also states that her program identification number is 3763. (ROA 60.)
On June 26, 2026, the plaintiff filed a “Notice of Lodging of Redacted Documents” (ROA 76.) and concurrently lodged copies of the documents with redactions. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions. On all documents identified in ROA 76, except for ROA 21, the plaintiff has redacted her name, address, email and phone number. The Court finds the redactions of this plaintiff’s “identifying characteristics” (as defined in Code of Civil Procedure §367.3(a)(1)) appropriate to justify sealing the documents and that the redactions are sufficiently narrowly tailored.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
However, on ROA 21, the redaction of the defendant’s file number and settlement offer are not appropriate for sealing.
Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure §367.3(c) requires that: “In an action filed under this section, the plaintiff shall state in the caption of the complaint ‘ACTION BASED ON CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 367.3.’ ” The proposed redacted complaint does not contain this statement in the caption.
Finally, plaintiff will need to submit a proposed order on Judicial Council Form SH-001 which lists her pseudonym (Jane Doe), her address to be contained in the public record, as well as a listing of the documents to be sealed as referenced in the Notice of Lodging at ROA 76.
Accordingly, the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24 to allow plaintiff to correct the deficiencies listed hereing. All further documents must be filed not less than 14 calendar days prior to the continued hearing date.
Additionally, the hearing on the Order to Show Cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendant as required by Rule 3.110 is CONTINUED to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24. Any evidence submitted in response to the OSC is required to be filed 14 calendar days prior to the hearing.
212 Law Offices of Before the court is an unopposed Motion Directing Joseph P. Interpleading of Funds (Motion) filed by plaintiff McGinley vs. Law Offices of Joseph B. McGinley (Plaintiff). The Falck Mobile Motion is GRANTED. Health, Inc. Plaintiff was in possession of $42,673.35 in settlement funds (Funds) related to the underlying motor vehicle accident matter; the Funds have now been deposited with the court. (Ferrell Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A.) Plaintiff states there are conflicting demands on the Funds and Plaintiff has applied to the court for an order discharging it from liability and dismissing it from the action. (Code of Civil Procedure section 386.5.)
Plaintiff stated by affidavit that it has no interest in the Funds. (Ferrell Decl. ¶ 7.) As the Funds have been deposited with the clerk of the court, the court will grant Plaintiff’s request and discharge Plaintiff from liability regarding the Funds and dismiss Plaintiff from this action upon Plaintiff’s filing of notice of this ruling.
The court also grants Plaintiff’s request for reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $7,436.70, and directs the clerk to issue payment in that amount to Plaintiff out of the Funds. (Code of