Motion to seal portions of Kaiser’s petition to confirm arbitration award; Motion to seal Kaiser’s opposition to the motion of respondents
Based on the foregoing, the petition is CONTINUED as set forth above for proper service on Zavala and Medina. Petitioner is ordered to file a proper proof of service at least five court days before the continued hearing date.
Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
16. Kaiser Before the court are the following two motions to seal filed Foundation by petitioner Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Health Plan vs. (Petitioner): (1) motion to seal portions of Kaiser’s petition Sharp to confirm arbitration award, and (2) motion to seal Memorial Kaiser’s opposition to the motion of respondents Sharp Hospital Memorial Hospital, Sharp Coronado Hospital & Healthcare Center, Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and Grossmont
Hospital Corporation dba Sharp Grossmont Hospital (collectively, Sharp) to vacate the arbitration award. As more fully set forth below, these motions are CONTINUED TO AUGUST 13, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for proof of service and potential narrowing of the scope of matters to be redacted.
As an initial issue, the court notes it is unable to locate any proof of service filed with the court to establish either of these motions were served on Sharp, and the court has not received any opposition demonstrating receipt of these motions and waiver of any service defect. The court understands Sharp may not oppose these motions, but the court may not assume that, and that potential does not eliminate the need for proof of proper service. Moreover, although Sharp may not oppose the motions, it may contend broader redaction is appropriate. Any proof of service was required to be filed at least five court days before the hearing. This shortcoming alone mandates a continuance.
Motion No. 1 (Seal Petition to Confirm)
By this motion, Kaiser seeks to seal portions of the arbitration award attached to its petition to confirm the arbitration award. Kaiser does not seek to seal any portions of the petition itself; just certain portions of the arbitration award.
“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules Ct. rule 2.550(c).) “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.551(a).) “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or
application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rule Ct., rule 2.551(b)(1).)
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?”
“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.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.550(d).)
“An order sealing the record must: [¶] (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and [¶] (B) 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. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.550(e)(1).)
Kaiser appears to have made a good faith effort to narrowly tailor the request to seal portions of the arbitration award, but the court nonetheless is not convinced that all the proposed redactions are appropriate. The court understands and agrees with the need to seal specific rates and calculations. For example, the court agrees with the redactions relating to the various percentages, dollar figures, formulas, and volumes identified on pages 2, 21, 22-23, 24, 28, 30, and 32 of the arbitration award.
The court, however, is not convinced of the need to redact the summary or quotation of allegations on page 3 of the award. The court also is not convinced of the propriety of sealing the more generalized summary of testimony and procedures that do not appear to disclose specific rates, calculations, and the like. (See, e.g., Arb. Award at pp. 15- 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 24.)
Accordingly, in addition to establishing service of the motions, Kaiser may want to revisit the scope of the redactions it is proposing. The court has considered the more “lightly redacted” alternative Kaiser submitted and does not find the differences to be significant.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on this motion is CONTINUED as set forth above.
Motion No. 2 (Seal Opposition to Motion to Vacate)
By this motion, Kaiser seeks to seal significant portions of its opposition to Sharp’s motion to vacate the arbitration award as well as the entirety of two exhibits Kaiser submits in support of its opposition.
These requests to seal appear significantly overbroad. Indeed, other than the percentage identified on page 8 of the opposition, the court is not convinced any portion of the opposition should be sealed. The requested redactions relate largely to a confidential settlement agreement and the arbitrator’s ruling relating thereto. The opposition, however, does not disclose any specific terms of the agreement other than its confidentiality provisions and limitations on its use.
The motion also seeks to seal the entirety of the two exhibits attached to the declaration of Benjamin D. Brooks, which are the confidential settlement agreement and excerpts from the testimony of various witnesses and the arguments of counsel at the arbitration. The court is not convinced the entire settlement agreement must be sealed and indeed notes that the supposed unredacted version that is submitted nonetheless includes substantial redactions. The court fully understands the need to protect various specific rates, formulas, and the like, but the wholesale redaction of more generalized terms is not appropriate. A potential alternative is to submit only select pages that are necessary to rely on the motions.
The wholesale redaction of the testimony and argument excerpts likewise has not been shown to be appropriate. Again, certain portions may certainly need to be redacted, but what has been proposed does not appear to be appropriately narrowly tailored.
Accordingly, in addition to establishing service of the motions, Kaiser may want to revisit the scope of the redactions it is proposing.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on this motion is CONTINUED as set forth above.
Kaiser’s counsel is ordered to give notice of these rulings.
17.
18.
19.