Tentative Ruling: Mia Young-Adeyeba, et al. v. Deep Shakti Singh, et al

Case Number

25CV05399

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/14/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion For An Order Redacting Minors’ Personal Identifying And Financial Information From Documents On The Court’s Website

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Mia Young-Adeyeba, individually and as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Charles Adeyeba; Jordan Adeyeba and Jasmine Adeyeba, by and through their guardian ad litem Mia Young-Adeyeba: James Eashoo, Rochelle Rodriguez, Eashoo Law, PC

For Defendants: No Appearances

RULING

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiffs for an order redacting minors’ personal identifying and financial information from documents on the court’s website is granted, in part. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the following court records as confidential: (1) the petition filed on November 19, 2025, by petitioner Mia Young-Adeyeba for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for plaintiff Jordan Adeyeba; (2) the petition filed on November 19, 2025, by petitioner Mia Young-Adeyeba for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for plaintiff Jasmine Adeyeba; (3) the order filed on January 28, 2026, approving the compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability as to claimant Jordan Adeyeba; and (4) the order filed on January 28, 2026, approving the compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability as to claimant Jasmine Adeyeba. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs shall submit a corrected proposed order for the court’s signature.

Background

On August 27, 2025, plaintiffs Mia Young-Adeyeba (M Adeyeba), individually and as the successor in interest to the Estate of Charles Adeyeba (C Adeyeba), Jordan Adeyeba (Jordan) and Jasmine Adeyeba (Jasmine), by and through M Adeyeba, their guardian ad litem (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed a complaint against defendants Coast California Hospitality Management, LLC (Coast Management), Coast Hotels USA, Inc., 306 W. Cabrillo Blvd., LLC (306 Cabrillo), West Beach Inn, A Coastal Hotel (WBI), and Deep Shakti Singh (Singh), alleging three causes of action: (1) wrongful death based on negligence; (2) negligence – survival action (by M Adeyeba as successor in interest to the Estate); and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress – bystander (by Jordan and Jasmine). (Note: The court refers to the minor parties by their first names to avoid confusion due to common familial surnames. No disrespect is intended.)

The causes of action alleged in the complaint arise from the drowning of C Adeyeba on July 6, 2024, while C Adeyeba was a guest at the West Beach Inn (the Inn) which is located at 306 W. Cabrillo Boulevard (the Property) in Santa Barbara, California. M Adeyeba is the wife of, and Jordan and Jasmine, respectively, are the son and daughter of, C Adeyeba. The complaint alleges that Coast Management manages the Inn; that 306 Cabrillo owns the Property; that WBI co-owns or controls the Inn; and that Singh is an employee at the Inn. Jordan and Jasmine (collectively, the Minors) were allegedly present and witnessed firsthand the drowning of and attempts to save C Adeyeba described in the complaint.

On November 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of conditional settlement of this case, and on November 18, filed an amended notice of conditional settlement stating that a request for dismissal will be filed no later than July 31, 2026.

On November 19, 2025, M Adeyeba filed a petition seeking the court’s approval of a compromise of the claims or actions by Jordan (the Jordan Petition), and separately filed a petition seeking the court’s approval of a compromise of the claims or actions by Jasmine (the Jasmine Petition) (collectively, the Petitions).

On January 21, 2026, the court entered a minute order adopting its tentative ruling (the Tentative Ruling) granting the Petitions.

On January 28, the court signed and filed an order granting the Jordan Petition and signed and separately filed an order granting the Jasime Petition (collectively, the Orders).

On April 1, a dismissal with prejudice of the entire action as to all parties and causes of action was entered as requested by Plaintiffs.

On August 20, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order directing the Clerk of the Court to replace the Petitions, the Tentative Ruling, and the Orders (collectively, the Subject Records) with public versions of those records which redact what the motion asserts is private sensitive or financial information concerning the Minors. (Notice at p. 2, ll. 6-22.) The motion alternatively seeks an order directing the Clerk of the Court to remove the Subject Records from the court’s website. (Notice at p. 2, ll. 23-24.)

The motion is supported by a declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, James Eashoo (attorney Eashoo), who states that they did not become aware that personal and financial information concerning the Minors remained publicly accessible on the court’s website, including in the Tentative Ruling, until M Adeyeba discovered that information through a Google search and brought it to attorney Eashoo’s attention. (Eashoo Dec., ¶ 6.)

Attorney Eashoo further asserts that the data contained in the Subject Records includes the Minors’ dates of birth and residential addresses, specific settlement amounts matched to future payout dates, and the names of the financial institutions involved; and that displaying that information on a publicly accessible Internet portal compromises the safety and financial security of the Minors, and exposes them to identity theft, financial fraud, commercial exploitation, targeted scams, harassment, and physical harm. (Eashoo Dec., ¶¶ 7, 8.)

Attached to attorney Eashoo’s declaration are proposed redacted versions of the Subject Records. (Eashoo Dec., ¶ 9.) Attorney Eashoo asserts or effectively asserts that the proposed redactions “are only to the documents posted on the [c]ourt’s website” and not to the physical copies of the records open to the public. (Eashoo Dec., ¶ 10.)

Analysis

“Courts in California have long recognized a common law right of access to public documents, including court records. [Citation.] Under the common law right of access, court records are presumed to be ‘ “open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality.” ’ [Citation.]

“California law also recognizes a constitutional right of access, grounded in the First Amendment, to court proceedings and court documents. [Citations.] ‘A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil trials. [Citation.] That is because “the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system, and that interest strongly supports a general right of access in ordinary civil cases.” ’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1078 (Tamir), italics in original.)

California Rules of Court, rule 255, “codif[ies] the principles articulated by California courts concerning the public’s First Amendment right of access to court records” (Tamir, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 1079), and states that “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open[]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c)). California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b), authorizes a party to file a motion or application for an order sealing a record.

The available information shows that Plaintiffs do not seek by the present motion to place under seal any portion of the Subject Records and, instead, seek an order redacting certain material from those records. (Memorandum at p. 7, ll. 3-7.) Notwithstanding that Plaintiffs do not seek an order sealing the Subject Records under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 and 2.551, the motion asserts or effectively asserts that there exists an overriding interest in the material that is the subject of the proposed redactions to the Subject Records, and that the requirements to seal or redact those records set forth in rule 5.220 are satisfied here. (Memorandum at pp. 6-7.) “The burden rests on [Plaintiffs] to establish compelling reasons why and to what extent the records should be made private.” (Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367, 374 (Copley Press).)

Relevant here, “[a] basic principle of motion practice is that the moving party must specify for the court ... the grounds upon which that party seeks relief.” (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125 (Luri).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 requires that a notice of motion to “state ... the grounds upon which it will be made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.) California Rules of Court, rule 31110(a), requires a notice of motion to “state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” “As a general rule, the trial court may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion. [Citations.] ... The purpose of these requirements is to cause the moving party to ‘sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the court.’ [Citation.]” (Luri, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1125.)

The motion does not include citations, on a point-by-point basis with page and line numbers, to the specific locations in each of the Subject Records where the material at issue appears supported by factual and legal argument sufficient to demonstrate an overriding interest in that material. Instead, the motion presents general and conclusory arguments that the entirety of the proposed redactions to the Subject Records will protect the Minors from digital financial profiling, identity theft, automated data-scraping algorithms, and commercial profiling, among other things. Absent specific citations to the Subject Records where each specific material at issue appears supported by reasoned argument, the motion effectively forces the court to guess why there exists an overriding interest in the material that is the subject of the proposed redactions.

Further, the notice states that the motion is made pursuant to article I, section 1 of the California Constitution and California Rules of Court, rules 1.201, 2.503, 2.550 and 2.551, on the grounds that the proposed redactions to the Subject Records will protect the Minors’ asserted interests. Though the notice and motion assert an overriding interest in certain information of the Minors only, the information which the motion seeks to redact appears to include a reduction in the attorney fees charged by attorney Eashoo; the amount M Adeyeba will receive in settlement; and litigation costs to be paid from M Adeyeba’s portion of the settlement, among other similar information. (See, e.g., Eashoo Dec. at pdf pp. 17, 21, 26-28, 32, & 39.) Wholly absent from the motion is any factual or legal argument showing an overriding interest in that information which appears to pertain only to the settlement of M Adeyeba’s claim including with respect to the attorney fees incurred by M Adeyeba.

In addition, and for the reasons discussed above, to the extent the motion seeks to redact information or material pertaining to M Adeyeba’s settlement, the court does not consider those arguments.

The motion also does not explain why “the amount of money a person receives in judgment or court-approved settlement as the result of tortious conduct is confidential. The fact of a damage award, whatever size, is not in itself a private fact deserving protection and secrecy ... is not in the public interest. The settlement amount is not a trade secret, within a privilege, or likely to place anyone in ‘clear and present danger of attack.’ [Citation.]” (Copley Press, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 376.) In addition, “[p]robate proceedings, including a petition for minor’s compromise, are not closed proceedings. No statute exempts probate files from the status of public records. [Citation.] ... ‘[W]hen individuals employ the public powers of state courts to accomplish private ends ... they do so in full knowledge of the possibly disadvantageous circumstance that the documents and records filed ... will be open to public inspection.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs sought the court’s approval and protection to settle the claims asserted by the Minors in this action. Though “[a] plaintiff may freely consent to give up the opportunity for a public acknowledgement of the defendant’s wrong” (Barella v. Exchange Bank (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 793, 798), the motion presents no information or evidence which shows why the claims of the Minors, or the settlements of those claims including as to any amounts received by M Adeyeba or the attorney’s fees or costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this action, are confidential, private, or implicate an overriding interest that overcomes any right of access to that information.

The available evidence and information also shows, without dispute, that the materials which Plaintiffs propose to redact from the Subject Records does not include the social security or financial account numbers of the Minors. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.201(a)(1), (2) [requiring the redaction of those numbers from papers filed in the court’s public file]; Memorandum at p. 5, ll. 3-9 [asserting only that the provisions of rule 1.201 could “extend” to information related to social security and financial account numbers].) California Rules of Court, rule 1.201, also provides: “The responsibility for excluding or redacting identifiers identified in (a) from all documents filed with the court rests solely with the parties and their attorneys.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.201(b).) For these reasons, there exists some question as to whether rule 1.201 permits the Clerk of the Court to make the proposed redactions to the Subject Records.

Though the constitutional right to privacy “embraces confidential financial information” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 503), the motion also does not show why the Subject Records disclose information sufficient to identify the location of any accounts pertaining to the Minors, such as account numbers or other financial account identifiers (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1065–1066; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 655, 657 [general discussion]).  

The court also notes that, in some contexts, the Legislature has expressed its intent that certain information or records are confidential, and prescribed procedures for governing requests for access to such confidential records. (People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669, 678, 698 [general discussion].) For example, with limited exception, the Legislature has “express[ly] inten[ded] ‘that juvenile court records, in general, should be confidential.’ [Citation.] The strong public policy of confidentiality of juvenile proceedings and records has long been recognized.” (In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 231; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827.) The records of an internal investigation by a law enforcement agency are also “considered ‘confidential’ and part of an officer’s personnel records” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.5. (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1085.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.2 limits access to unlawful detainer case records, “including the court file, index, and register of actions”, to the persons described in that statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161.2, subd. (a)(1)(A)-(G).) These examples are intended to be illustrative but not exhaustive.

Though Code of Civil Procedure section 372 “empowers a guardian ad litem to settle” the claim of a minor, that settlement “is not final or binding until the agreement is approved by the trial court in which the claim was brought.” (Carachure v. Scott (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 16, 31.) The plain language of section 372 does not indicate a legislative intent that a petition for court approval of a settlement of a minor’s claim be kept confidential. Instead, “[t]he purpose of section 372 is to protect the minor involved in litigation by adding an extra layer of scrutiny to the settlement of the minor’s claims.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339.) For these reasons, the petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of” the settlement; and “must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) Nothing in those requirements, which expressly require a “full disclosure” by the petitioner of all information required on a mandatory Judicial Council form, suggests that a petition brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, must be kept confidential.

California Rules of Court, rule 7.953, also provides: “In any case in which the court orders that funds to be received by a minor or a person with a disability must be deposited in a financial institution and not disbursed without further order of the court, the order must include a provision that a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for deposit of funds.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.953(a).) That rule does not require the receipt to be filed with the court by the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited be kept confidential.

Also relevant here, “[t]he court may require the presence and testimony of witnesses, including the attending or examining physician, at the hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952(b).) Rule 7.952 does not state that the hearing is a confidential or closed proceeding.

For the reasons discussed above, the statutes and court rules relevant here do not “manifest a clear legislative intent to preserve the confidentiality of the information” appearing in the Subject Records. (Richards v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 635, 638.) For these reasons, the motion does not show why there exists an overriding interest in the material or information appearing in the Subject Records that overcomes any right of access to those records

Though the motion is insufficient to show an overriding interest in any information appearing in the Subject Records, the Petitions and the Orders were electronically filed with the court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.253, and the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, Local Rules, rule 1012(1)(2). Subject to exception, “an electronically filed document is a public document at the time it is filed unless it is sealed under rule 2.551(b) or made confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.254(c).) Though the Petitions and the Orders were not sealed under rule 2.551(b) and are not made confidential by law as further discussed above, California Rules of Court, rule 2.500 et seq., “are intended to provide the public, parties, parties’ attorneys, legal organizations, court-appointed persons, and government entities with reasonable access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form, while protecting privacy interests.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.500(a).)

Rule 2.500 et seq. “apply only to trial court records as defined in rule 2.502(3).” (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.501(a).) Though the Petitions and the Orders are trial court records for purposes of California Rules of Court, rule 2.502(3), the motion does not explain why the Tentative Ruling is a “court record”. In addition, the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, General order no. GO-2026-004, provides: “Once the hearing date for a matter has passed, the tentative ruling associated with that hearing shall be removed from the Court’s public website no later than sixty (60) days after the hearing date.” For these and all further reasons discussed above, and considering that the hearing on the Petitions was calendared for and held on January 21, 2026, the motion as to the Tentative Ruling is moot and will be denied on that basis.

As to the Petitions and the Orders, California Rules of Court, rule 2.503(c)(6), provides: “A court that maintains the following records in electronic form must provide electronic access to them at the courthouse, to the extent it is feasible to do so, but may not provide public remote access to ... [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] [r]ecords in proceedings to compromise the claims of a minor or a person with a disability[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.503(c)(6).) “’The public’ means a person, a group, or an entity, including print or electronic media, regardless of any legal or other interest in a particular court record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.502(13).) “’Remote access’ means electronic access from a location other than a public terminal at the courthouse.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.502(13).)

The court infers from the information ostensibly discovered through a “Google” search by M Adeyeba as described in attorney Eashoo’s declaration and above, that there presently exists public remote access to the Petitions and the Orders. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will grant the motion, in part as to the Petitions and the Orders only, and direct the Clerk of the Court to file Petitions and the Orders as confidential for the purpose of preventing the public from electronically accessing those records from a location other than the courthouse pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.502(13).

The court has reviewed the proposed order lodged by Plaintiffs with the motion and does not intend to sign it. The court will require Plaintiffs to submit for the court’s review and signature, a corrected proposed order that conforms to the ruling herein.