Motion to Seal
The Motion to Seal brought by Defendants Sunil A. Brahmbhatt, Keven Brahmbhatt and Natasha Brahmbhatt, is DENIED.
“The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596-597.) In line with the above, “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court rule 2.550(c).)
Firstly, in seeking to seal “the entire court file,” Defendants have necessarily failed to narrowly tailor their request, as required by California Rules of Court rule 2.550(d).
Within the body of the motion, Defendants briefly state “[t]he Documents which are sought to be sealed as a part of the file are the Complaint and First Amended Complaint with all its Exhibits (25)...” (Motion: 3: 25-27.) While this statement gives the impression of narrowing, the referenced Complaint and First Amended Complaint, along with their Exhibits, total 619 pages. (ROA Nos. 2 and 87.)
Likewise, while Defendants assert that “sensitive financial information relating to the Defendant entities and Plaintiffs investment” are included somewhere within those 619 pages, the same is insufficient to allow a narrowly tailored order which complies with California Rules of Court rule 2.550(e)(1).
Of note, “trial courts can, and should, view overly inclusive sealing efforts with a jaundiced eye, and impose sanctions as appropriate.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 500.)
In addition to the above, while Defendants offer declarations which state they have been negatively affected by certain allegations and filings being public, the declarations do not contain “facts sufficient to justify the sealing” of the entire record. (
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?”
Within the motion, Defendants assert sealing is necessary to protect the reputation of a licensed attorney from “fabricated and totally false” allegations, stating: “Courts recognize the serious harm caused by publishing unverified accusations of misconduct against a licensed attorney. See Burkle, 135 Cal.App.4th at 1052-1053.” (Motion: 4:15-18.) However, the citation to In re Marriage Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, is wholly unavailing to the point to which it is attached: The cited portion of Burkle, concluded that former Family Code section 2024.6, which mandated the sealing of information concerning assets and liabilities in divorce proceedings, unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment right of public access to court records. (Id. at pp. 1052-1053.)
Thus, while Defendants declare they have been injured by malicious and false allegations, they offer no authority which supports sealing documents solely based on reputational damage.
Thereafter, Defendants generally cite Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, asserting it stands for the proposition that “sealing [is] appropriate to prevent business harm.” (Motion: 4:28.) However, Defendants have not identified any “financial information” or confidential business operations, which have been publicly filed, that would fall within the above holding. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286.) At best, Defendants declare in a conclusory fashion, that the record contains “sensitive financial information relating to the Defendant entities and Plaintiffs investment.” (¶4 of Sunil Brahmbhatt Declaration.)
Indeed, if anything, Defendants assert the information sought to be sealed is false, and consequently, cannot reveal the actual business operations of Defendants. (See ¶14 and ¶21 of Sunil Brahmbhatt Declaration; See also ¶5 of Keven Brahmbhatt Declaration.)
In addition to the above, the citation to Universal brings to light a question of timeliness: The Universal Court proceeded to deny the request to seal therein, as the financial data at issue had been publicly filed in another action: “In the absence of any evidence of inadvertence or mistake, we are satisfied that defendant’s own voluntary disclosure of the financial data in an unsealed document it filed in superior court where the information has been available for public review for over one year substantially outweighs the confidentiality interests identified....” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286.)
Like the circumstances in Universal, the record of this action includes filings by Defendants, that have been public, in some cases, for over 5 years.
In Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, the Court held the failure to follow sealing procedures, when documents have been publicly available, is conduct “so inconsistent with an intent to enforce its rights to obtain sealed records under the Rules of Court as to induce a reasonable belief [the party has] relinquished such right.” (Id. at p. 599-601.) The Court also held that “irrespective of the waiver, the trial court lacked discretion to entertain a belated motion to seal.” (Id. at p. 601.)
Defendants have offered no explanation as to how this motion, which seeks to seal documents publicly filed as early as March 9, 2021, is timely. Page 14 of 27
Next, the motion states: “Exhibits ‘A’ to ‘Y’ are the investment agreements which contain a confidentiality clause and include private financial investment information typically sealed by courts.” (Motion: 5:2-4.) The motion does not identify these documents more specifically; however, they are presumably exhibits to the Complaint. Regardless, as stated above, the “private financial investment information” is not specifically identified.
In support of this portion of the motion, Defendants cite only Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, wherein the Court declined to seal a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause. Huffy reaffirmed that “a settlement agreement which had a confidentiality provision could not be sealed unless there was a showing of serious injury which would result from public disclosure.” (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106.) Similarly, no such showing has been made herein.
Lastly, while Defendants briefly cite authority which discusses sealing trade secrets (See ¶18 of Sunil Brahmbhatt Declaration, citing In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298-299), Defendants have not identified any trade secrets, included within any filing.
Based on all the above, the motion is DENIED.