John Doe #3 v. Santa Barbara Unified School District and Justin Sell
John Doe #3 v. Santa Barbara Unified School District and Justin Sell
Case Number
22CV01608
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 11/15/2023 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
1) Plaintiff’s Motion To File Under Seal Documents Lodged Under Seal; 2) Order To Show Cause
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff John Doe #3: David M. Ring, Natalie Weatherford, Sonya Ostovar,
Afnan Shukry, Taylor & Ring LLP
For Defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District: Harry W. Harrison,
Marianne Gordon, Tyson & Mendes
RULING
(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to file under seal of Plaintiff John Doe #3 is granted. Plaintiff’s exhibits 7, 8, and 19, which were lodged with this Court on August 16, 2023, in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District’s motion for summary judgment, are ordered filed under seal. No other Court records or records relating to the case are to be sealed at this stage of the proceedings. Only the Court, the parties named in this action and their counsel of record are authorized to inspect the sealed records.
(2) For all reasons discussed herein, the Court’s order to show cause is discharged.
Background
Plaintiff John Doe #3 (a pseudonym used for these litigation purposes) filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) in this matter on August 24, 2022, alleging seven causes of action: (1) sexual abuse of a minor (against Defendant Justin Sell or Sell); (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against Sell); (3) sexual harassment (Civ. Code, §§ 51.9, 52) (against Sell); (4) negligent hiring, supervision & retention of an unfit employee (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2 & 820) (against Defendant the Santa Barbara Unified School District or the District); (5) breach of mandatory duty: failure to report suspected child abuse (Gov. Code, § 815.6; Pen. Code, § 11166 et seq.) (against the District); (6) negligent supervision of a minor (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820) (against the District); and (7) negligence (against Does 31-50 only).
On June 14, 2023, the District filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action alleged in the FAC (the District’s motion). On August 16, 2023, Doe filed an opposition to the District’s motion. In support of the opposition, Doe conditionally lodged under seal his exhibit nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 19. (See Aug. 16, 2023, Doe Notice Of Lodgment at ¶¶ 1-7.) Because the lodged records were not properly before the Court for all reasons discussed in the Court’s August 30, 2023 Minute Order (the August 2023 Minute Order), the Court continued the hearing on the District’s to permit Doe to file a procedurally and substantively appropriate motion to seal the lodged records. (See Aug. 30, 2023, Minute Order.)
On September 8, 2023, Doe filed a motion for an order sealing exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19 attached to the declaration of his counsel Natalie Weatherford (the motion to seal). The sole ground asserted by Doe for an order sealing exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19, is that these records reveal Doe’s last name. Doe asserted no objection to the disclosure of Doe’s first name or the first initial of Doe’s last name, and asserted no other grounds for an order sealing exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19 apart from Doe’s right to prevent public disclosure of Doe’s last or full name. Additionally, in the motion to seal, Doe expressly asserted that he does not seek an order sealing any portions of Exhibits 10, 11, 17, or 18 previously lodged by Doe in support of Doe’s opposition to the motion. No party to this matter filed an opposition to the motion to seal filed by Doe.
On August 25, 2023, Doe filed a request for dismissal of the action with prejudice as to Sell only.
On October 18, 2023, the Court issued its Minute Order (the October 2023 Minute Order) noting that in a previous Minute Order dated November 2, 2022, and the August 2023 Minute Order, the Court determined that an order sealing records or portions thereof that reveal Doe’s identity would be warranted for all reasons discussed in the previous orders. (See October 2023 Minute Order) However, as the exhibits lodged by Doe in support of his opposition to the District’s motion included information and matters other than Doe’s last name or identity, the Court found that Doe had failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that all of the information contained in the lodged records implicate overriding interests that overcome the public’s right of access to these records, and found that the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored. (See October 2023 Minute Order.)
As the Court was unable to make the findings required to issue an order sealing the records due to the deficiencies noted above and in the October 2023 Minute Order, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to seal to permit Doe’s counsel, Afnan Shukry (Shukry), to publicly file exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19 in a manner that redacts only Doe’s last name. (See October 2023 Minute Order.) The Court also ordered Shukry to publicly file redacted versions of Exhibits 7, 8, and 19 on or before November 6, 2023. (Ibid.)
The Court further ordered Shukry to appear and show cause why monetary sanctions not to exceed $1,500 should not be imposed against him for violating the August 2023 Minute Order and California Rules of Court, rules 2.551 (b)(1) and 2.551(b)(5). The Court ordered Doe’s counsel to file and serve a written response to the order to show cause on or before November 6, 2023.
On November 6, 2023, Doe filed a supplemental Shukry declaration, and a document titled “Public-Redacts Materials From Conditionally Sealed Records” (the Publicly Filed Records). In the supplemental Shukry declaration, counsel declares that Doe intends to cure the defects in Doe’s original filing by publicly filing redacted versions of the exhibits conditionally lodged under seal and referenced in the Weatherford declaration filed in support of Doe’s opposition to the District’s motion. (Supplemental Shukry Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel identifies those portions of exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19 that contain or disclose Doe’s last name on a line-by-line basis with specific references within and to each document. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9.) Counsel further declares that Doe seeks to publicly file and does not seek a sealing order with respect to exhibit nos. 10, 11, 17, and 18 which counsel declares may be publicly filed without sealing. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 10-14 & 18.)
Attached to the Publicly Filed Records are redacted versions of exhibit nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 19 submitted by Doe in support of his opposition to the District’s motion.
Also on November 6, 2023, Shukry filed a declaration re the Court’s order to show cause. Counsel declares that the deficiencies that exist in the motion to seal were due to a misunderstanding by counsel as to what had already been filed and as to the Court’s expectations for the motion with regards to tailoring. (Shukry OSC Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel further declares that at the time the motion to seal was prepared, counsel understood that Doe had filed public redacted versions of the exhibits and had lodged the exhibits conditionally under seal when Doe filed the opposition to the District’s motion, which was an error. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Counsel apologizes for any inconvenience to the Court and requests that sanctions not be imposed. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
The District has not filed a response to the declarations further discussed above.
Analysis
(1) Motion To Seal
For all reasons more fully discussed in the Minute Order dated November 2, 2022, the August 2023 Minute Order, and the October 2023 Minute Order, the Court finds that there exists an overriding interest in protecting Doe’s identity that overcomes the public’s right to access to Doe’s full or last name. The Court further finds that with respect to exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to Doe’s last name only and not the entirety of these exhibits which include other matters for which Doe has not sought a sealing order.
There exists no less restrictive means to protect Doe’s overriding interest in protecting his identity and the Court is not aware of any countervailing interests or prejudice to the District. Accordingly, for all reasons discussed herein and, in the November 2, 2022, Minute Order, the August 2023 Minute Order, and the October 2023 Minute Order, the Court will grant the motion to seal and order that those portions of exhibit nos. 7, 8, and 19 that reveal Doe’s last name be placed under seal.
The Court notes that the publicly filed versions of exhibit nos. 7, 11, 17, and 18 include redactions to what appears to constitute matters or information other than Doe’s last name. The Court has not granted any motion to seal and no party has filed a motion requesting a sealing order with respect to these matters or information. In addition, the redacted matters and information are not separately identified in the motion to seal. As further discussed herein, the Court’s sealing order is limited to Doe’s last name as explained in the motion to seal. The Court will not consider any redacted material other than the materials that have been placed under seal as further discussed herein.
(2) Order To Show Cause
The Court has reviewed counsel Shukry’s written declaration submitted in response to the order to show cause. Considering that counsel has satisfactorily explained the errors that resulted in the violation of the August 2023 Minute Order and California Rules of Court, rules 2.551 (b)(1) and 2.551(b)(5), that counsel has made efforts to correct these violations, and in the interests of justice, the Court will discharge the order to show cause. However, counsel is reminded of his obligation to comply with future Court orders that may be issued in this matter and with Court rules. Future violations committed without good cause or substantial justification may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.30(b). (See Seykora v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1075, 1081.)