| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Seal Certain Records In Support Of Plaintiff'S Privacy Rights And Employability
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC25624220 - June 2, 2025 Hearing date: June 2, 2025 Case number: CGC25624220 Case title: CESAR LECAROS VS. SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION (SFAF) Case Number: | | CGC25624220 | Case Title: | | CESAR LECAROS VS. SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION (SFAF) | Court Date: | | 2025-06-02 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Seal Certain Records In Support Of Plaintiff'S Privacy Rights And Employability | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Monday, June 02, 2025, line 7, PLAINTIFF CESAR LECAROS'Motion To Seal Certain Records In Support Of Plaintiff'S Privacy Rights And Employability (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)
Plaintiff Cesar Lecaros' Motion To Seal Certain Records In Support Of Plaintiff's Privacy Rights And Employability 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, Plaintiff asks the court to seal "specific pleadings and exhibits filed in connection with this action," later referring to "disputed allegations related to internal employment performance and workplace grievances." Plaintiff here did not satisfy his burden of presenting specific facts demonstrating that specific information should be sealed and the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure.
Plaintiff has failed to identify a single document in the record that he wants sealed. He states that he has already lost employment opportunities due to information in the record. But this cannot be true. The only documents in the record at the time he filed this motion were placed there by Plaintiff himself. They reveal no confidential information.
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?”
To the extent the motion is preemptive, Plaintiff should not expect to put at issue Defendant's actions related to his employment and, at the same time, keep confidential any information that reflects negatively on him. The fact is one waives substantial privacy rights when he becomes a party, particularly a plaintiff. The public can distinguish allegations, on one hand, and evidence on the other. If general reputational concern were enough to seal a file, nearly all court records would be sealed. This is the opposite of the rule compelling public access to court files.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not established a substantial probability exists that its cognizable privacy interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed. His claim that he has already suffered harm is not credible.
Finally, the proposed sealing is hopelessly fluid and unknowable in scope, which, by definition, is not narrowly tailored. Plaintiff's attempt to withdraw the motion on May 29, 2025-less than two court days before the hearing-comes too late and is denied.
Defendant must prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing. (end of tentative ruling part 1, see part 2) = (302/JMQ) | |