Jane Doe v. Paleo Collective LLC, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 509) September 10, 2026 DEPARTMENT 509 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

LLC, et al. MOTION TO RESTORE PUBLIC ACCESS AND UNSEAL MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe RESPONDING PARTYS: Defendants Kylie Jenner, Inc., and Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is an employment action. Plaintiff Jane Doe (Plaintiff) filed this complaint against defendants Paleo Collective LLC; Kylie Jenner, Inc.; Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc.; Natalie Pukasemvarangkoon; Kylie Jenner; and Itzel Sibrian, (collectively, Defendants) arising from an employment relationship. Plaintiff alleges she was employed as a personal chef until she experienced discrimination leading to her termination. Plaintiffs assert twenty-two causes of action.

Plaintiff now moves for an order unsealing the complaint and case file and directing the Clerk of the Court to restore public access to the record. Defendants Kylie Jenner, Inc., and Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc. filed a joint response in opposition.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal is MOOT. An OSC Re: Plaintiff's Use of Pseudonym is scheduled for October 27, 2026. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION: Motion to Unseal Plaintiff requests this Court unseal the case file. Plaintiff argues that on July 1, 2026, "a Bloomberg Law reporter unable to locate the Complaint" and that Plaintiff's counsel "spoke with the court Clerk, who confirmed that the file appears as 'sealed'" on July 9, 2026. (Mot. at p. 3:14-17; Shaker Decl. P.P.4-5.) However, while this action was sealed on June 22, 2026, it was then unsealed on July 22, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal is MOOT.

However, this motion does bring to forefront Plaintiff's use of a pseudonym. Before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test: A party's request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access. In deciding the issue the court must bear in mind the critical importance of the public's right to access judicial proceedings. Outside of cases where anonymity is expressly permitted by statute, litigating by pseudonym should occur 'only in the rarest of circumstances.' (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 111-112, emphasis added.)

Plaintiff's motion rests largely on the assertion that the public's right to access these proceedings is of critical importance. This appears to conflict with the request to proceed under a pseudonym. However, such a resolution requires an evidentiary hearing, which shall be based solely on declarations at this time. Instead, the Court sets an OSC Re: Plaintiff's Use of Pseudonym for October 27, 2026. An evidentiary hearing will be conducted to determine whether Plaintiff has sufficient evidence supporting her need for a pseudonym. The Court makes no findings at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 10, 2026 ___________________________________ Randolph M. Hammock