| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion To Seal Entire Case
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, February 19, 2026, Line 7. Plaintiff Delores Martin's unopposed Motion To Seal Entire Case is DENIED.
A court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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 of Ct., rule 2.550(d)(1)-(5); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Locke) (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1216-1218 ("NBC Subsidiary").)
The party seeking the sealing of a record bears the burden of presenting information sufficient to identify the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment and the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) The moving party must set forth specific facts in support of a motion to seal; statements that are too conclusory, abstract, or generic are not sufficient to satisfy the burden. (Id. at pp. 895-896.)
Here, Petitioner seeks to seal the entire docket for this breach of insurance contract action "because confidential and personal information permeates the pleadings and exhibits already filed." (Mot. at p. 3.) On this record, the court finds Petitioner's confidentiality interest is not well supported and it is outweighed by the public right of access to court records. The court finds there is no overriding interest supporting sealing. The court finds Petitioner failed to show a substantial probability that her confidentiality interests will be prejudiced if the entire docket is not sealed. The court finds Petitioner's proposed sealing is substantially overbroad and not narrowly tailored. The court finds Petitioner failed to show no less restrictive means exists to protect the information that she is concerned about. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)
Both parties are ordered each to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the above text and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
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?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.