Defendant’s Motion to Seal Records
Giuseppe Panzuto vs. Michael Tutelian
Defendant’s Motion to Seal Records
Hearing Date: May 15, 2026
Defendant Michael Tutelian (“Defendant”) moves to seal the entire record of this civil case because “continued public access causes concrete, ongoing harm with no countervailing public benefit,” and argues that an order to the contrary “directly undermine[s] the criminal court’s sealing order and inflict fresh reputational and economic harm on Defendant.” [Motion at 1.] After reviewing Defendant’s moving papers, the motion to seal is DENIED on procedural and substantive grounds.
Legal Standards.
Court records are presumed open to the public. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550, subd. (c).] The California Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right of public access to civil litigation documents. [NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209, fn. 25.] Therefore, a court order is required before any party files under seal a motion, pleading, evidence, or other paper. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.551, subd. (a); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.]
California Rules of Court, rule 2.550,1 states that a court may order a record sealed if it expressly finds facts that establish: “(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; [¶] (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; [¶] (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, subd. (d).] “The language of rule 2.550 is unambiguous: all superior court records are presumptively open and subject to the sealing rules, regardless of the particular court proceeding to which those records apply, unless the records fall within the confidentiality or discovery exceptions under subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) of that rule, or a statute or rule exempts the court from the sealing rules.” [
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?”
Discussion.
Procedurally, the motion is DENIED as untimely. Dismissal of the entire case was entered on March 18, 2025. Therefore, the documents that Defendant seeks to seal have been
1 Hereinafter, all references to “Rule(s)” are to the California Rules of Court. 1
available in the Court’s public file for over a year. Defendant has known the documents were publicly available the entire time, but has not taken prompt action to file a proper motion to seal, whether before or soon after the dismissal. Moreover, case law and public policy dictate that the sealing procedures in Rules 2.550 and 2.551 should not be interpreted to permit “an open-ended timeframe for filing a motion to seal records long after the underlying substantive matter has been decided.” [Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 601.] Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as untimely due to the significant passage of time.
Even if Defendant timely filed the motion and the Court considers its merits, the motion remains DENIED.
First, the sealing request is not “narrowly tailored” because Defendant moves “for an order sealing the entire records” in this case. [Notice of Motion at p. 1, ¶ 1; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550, subd. (d).]
Second, Defendant does not show that his reputation and future employment prospects outweigh the public’s right to access this case’s records. [See Defendant’s Decl. at ¶¶ 2, 3, 5-7, and 9.] Defendant claims that the “public availability of this civil court file continues to harm [him] in concrete and ongoing ways.” [Id. at ¶ 6.] However, this argument lacks evidence. He has not submitted any admissible proof, including specific instances where background checks by “prospective clients, bonding companies, insurance carriers, or licensing authorities” revealing this civil case have harmed his livelihood. [Ibid.]
Defendant’s concerns about economic retaliation do not justify sealing the entire court file, especially since the potential injury is not extraordinary. [See, e.g., Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1149-1150 (unsealing documents involving a celebrity’s drug use, alcohol use, and sexual relationships); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 457 U.S. 596, 607 (sealing is appropriate to protect minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment); Huffy Corp. v.
Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 104 (holding that containing admissions of wrongdoing and witness identities does not justify sealing); In re M.T. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 322, 328, 343-344 (granting motion to seal entire record of transgender plaintiff’s petition for change of name and gender where plaintiff’s safety and privacy outweighed public’s right of access).]
Third, even assuming he has shown an overriding interest in his reputation and future job prospects, Defendant’s motion still fails because he has not shown a “substantial probability” that his interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550, subd. (d)(3).] “‘Substantial probability’ is a higher standard than ‘reasonable likelihood,’ the latter of which has been construed to mean something less than ‘more probable than not’ yet greater than something that is ‘merely possible.’” [Marino, 110 Cal.App.5th at 864 (additional quotation marks omitted).]
Here, Defendant’s claimed prejudice was already lessened by the dismissal of this case. Additionally, Defendant provides no evidence showing a “substantial probability” that a potential employer would refuse to hire him as a general contractor based on the allegations in this case, even after the case’s dismissal. Defendant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate prejudice. [See Marino, 110 Cal.App.5th at 863-865 (affirming the denial of the motion to seal civil harassment records where sealing rules applied, and the movant’s claimed
fears of reputational and employment harm were speculative, and he failed to show an overriding interest, evidence of prejudice, or a narrowly tailored request).]
Fourth, Defendant argues that the “ongoing public availability of these civil records directly undermines the criminal court’s sealing order.” [Defendant’s Decl. at ¶ 9.] He overlooks that the California Rules of Court “have the force of law and are as binding as procedural statutes as long as they are not inconsistent with statutory or constitutional law.” [Marino, 110 Cal.App.5th at 858 (internal quotes omitted; citing Marshall v. Webster (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 279, fn. 3).] Defendant does not argue that Rule 2.550 conflicts with Penal Code sections 851.91 and 851.92. As a result, Defendant provides no reason for this Court to deviate from Rule 2.550 in this case.
Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED. The Court shall prepare the Order.
3