Motion to seal portions of opposition brief
timely and properly serve Respondent and to file proof of such service at least five court days before the continued hearing date. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
4. The City of Dana Point vs. SND, L.P. 2026-01570223 CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., pursuant to stipulation and order entered on July 6, 2026.
5. McMillan vs. Exir Co., Inc. 2012-00564599 Before the court is the motion of defendant Abraham N. Mourshaki (Defendant) to deposit funds with the court and for entry of satisfaction of judgment. The court will not post a tentative ruling on the merits of this motion. Instead, both Defendant and plaintiff Richard V. McMillan (Plaintiff) are ordered to appear for the hearing to discuss the motion and resolution of the parties’ dispute regarding the amount required to fully satisfy the judgment. Remote appearances are acceptable for purposes of this hearing.
6. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan vs. Sharp Memorial Hospital 2026-01566981 Before the court is the motion to seal portions of the opposition brief and supporting documents respondents Sharp Memorial Hospital, Sharp Coronado Hospital & Healthcare Center, Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and Grossmont Hospital Corporation dba Sharp Grossmont Hospital (collectively, Respondents) filed in response to the petition to confirm arbitration award filed by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (Petitioner).
As more fully set forth below, the hearing is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for Respondents to provide unredacted copies of the documents sought to be sealed, potentially narrow the request to seal, and potentially make a more detailed and specific showing to support the sealing request.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, Respondents request the court seal portions of the opposition to the Petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, portions of the declaration filed in support of the opposition, and the entirety of many of the exhibits attached to the supporting declaration.
Under the Rules of Court, the party moving to seal any documents must lodge unredacted copies of those documents. (Rules Ct., rule 2.551, subdivisions (b), (d).) With electronic filing, that is customarily done by filing a public and nonpublic version of each document to be sealed.
Although Respondents’ papers state unredacted copies have been lodged, the court is unable locate such documents in either the register of actions or any physical copies submitted to the courtroom.
The court is unable to rule on the merits of the motion without reviewing the unredacted version of the documents to determine whether the information is worthy of sealing and whether the sealing request is 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?”
Indeed, rule 2.550 requires the court to make specific factual findings before ordering any documents sealed and the court cannot make those findings without reviewing the unredacted version of the documents.
The court also is concerned the request to seal may not be as narrowly tailored as it should be to comply with the Rules of Court. For example, the motion seeks to redact the entirety of all but one of the exhibits submitted in support of the motion. Just because a document may contain some information worthy of sealing does not mean the entire document may be sealed. Again, the Rules of Court require the sealing to be narrowly tailored.
However, without reviewing the unredacted version of the documents, the court cannot make the necessary determination.
Moreover, the factual showing in support of the motion appears to be rather conclusory and nonspecific, and the citation to authority to support the necessity of sealing also appears to be rather general.
The court has seen the additional declarations Petitioner submitted in support of Respondent’s motion. Those declarations do provide more specificity, but the court is unable to determine if the information they provide is sufficient without reviewing the documents.
The court notes it is tasked to act as a gatekeeper and to protect the public’s presumptive right to access to the court’s records. The court may not act as a rubber stamp, and neither the lack of any opposition nor the stipulation of the parties is sufficient to support sealing.
As stated above, the court is required to make very specific findings before ordering even a small portion of any document sealed. The court takes this responsibility very seriously.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED as stated above. Respondents are ordered to file unredacted, nonpublic versions of each document they wish to be sealed. Respondents also may want to consider narrowing their sealing request and submitting supplemental evidence and authority to support the request.
Respondent is encouraged to clearly and specifically identify each document they wish to seal by specifically where it can be found. For example, Respondent’s opposition located at ROA number ___, or Exhibit A to the Tooch Declaration found at ROA number ___.
Any and all supplemental filings by Respondents must be filed and served no later than July 30, 2026.
Finally, the court notes neither side has yet reserved or otherwise obtained a hearing date on the petition to confirm the arbitration award or the opposition/request to vacate. Respondents’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
7 Raz Yaron vs. Sierra S. Conley 2026-01546480 Before the court is a motion for assignment order filed by judgment creditor Raz Yaron (Creditor) on April 28, 2026, against judgment debtor Sierra S. Conley (Debtor).
Specifically, Creditor seeks an order instructing Debtor “to assign to [Creditor] any and all salaries, royalties, commissions and/or monies generated from Sierra Sue, LLC.”
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510, “upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (a).)
The showing needed to obtain an assignment order is as follows: “Detailed evidentiary support for the request under § 708.510 is not required, but a judgment creditor is required to ‘describe [the sources of the right to payment] with sufficient detail so that [d]efendants can file a claim of exemption or other opposition.’ [Citation.] ‘[Section] 708.510(a) refers to a “payment due or to become due,” which suggests some degree of concreteness to the expected payment is required.’ [Citation.] ‘Certainly, there needs to be more than just speculation before the remedy of an assignment order can be provided.’ [Citation.]
To ensure that an assignment is both warranted and permissible under CCP § 708.510(a), courts require that a party seeking an assignment order identify the intended sources that are obligated to make payments to the judgment debtor. [Citation.]” (Linley Investments v. Jamgotchian (C.D. Cal. 2019) 2019 WL 1429507, at p. *3; see also Legal Additions LLC v. Kowalski (N.D. Cal. 2011) 2011 WL 3156724, at p. *2; UMG Recordings, Inc. v. BCD