| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
defendant’s motion to seal records
Case No.: 24STCV18864 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant’s motion to seal records
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff Karla Leiva filed this action against Defendant Aids Healthcare Foundation for employment discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated while on disability leave after protesting and reporting Defendant’s illegal activities, including unsafe or uninhabitable conditions.
On April 22, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to seal certain exhibits associated with Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 5, 2026. Defendant filed a reply on May 11, 2026.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550(c).)
“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only 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.” (Id., Rule 2.550(d).)
“A record must not be filed under seal without a court order.” (Id., Rule 2.551(a).)
DISCUSSION
I. The Material at Issue
Defendant moves to seal the following exhibits attached to the declaration of Natalie Khoury in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment: 15, 16, 32, 35, 43, 49, and 51. (See 04/03/26 Khoury Decl.)
Defendant seeks to redact certain identifying information (names, unit numbers) of nonparty tenants and AHF employees who were involved in, witnessed, and/or reported various incidents in order to protect their privacy and prevent a chilling effect on reporting. Defendant also moves to seal photographs of the interior of a unit occupied by a nonparty tenant. And Defendant moves to seal a security video of an assault that occurred at one of its properties.
II. Names and Unit Numbers
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?”
The Court finds that there is an overriding interest in redacting identifying information. The individuals at issue are nonparties who were involved in sensitive incidents such as assault or harassment and other matters of a personal nature. These individuals have a legitimate interest in not being publicly identified and associated with the incidents and matters referenced in the exhibits.
The privacy interest would be prejudiced without sealing, and the sealing is narrowly tailored because Defendant only seeks to redact names and unit numbers. There is no less restrictive means to protect the privacy interest.
Plaintiff argues that the information only consists of partial names and unit numbers. However, the exhibits contain full names in some instances. Moreover, the partial names consist of a full first name and last initial. When combined with a unit number, this makes the individual readily identifiable. Thus, redaction is warranted.
The public interest in disclosure is not prejudiced, because the exhibits remain unredacted in every other respect, and their substance has not been concealed. Therefore, the Court finds that redacting individual names and unit numbers is warranted.
III. Photos
The Court does not find an overriding interest in redacting the photos attached to Exhibit 32. The interior photos of a unit focus on specific conditions or fixtures, not general living spaces or personal possessions. Moreover, the redaction of tenant names and unit numbers means the photos cannot be associated with any particular individual. Thus, privacy is not implicated.
Uninhabitable conditions are relevant to the case because Plaintiff alleges she was retaliated against partly for reporting uninhabitable conditions. This is substantive matter related to the case, and the public has an interest in its disclosure. The public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest in this particular instance. Therefore, the interior photos in Exhibit 32 shall not be redacted.
IV. Security Footage
Defendant has failed to show that identifying information is ascertainable from the video in Exhibit 51 such that individual privacy is implicated. Evidence of an assault at one of Defendant’s properties is relevant because Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against for reporting safety issues. This is substantive matter related to the case, and the public has an interest in its disclosure.
Moreover, Defendant fails to establish that the footage constitutes a trade secret or proprietary information. The public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest in this particular instance. Therefore, Exhibit 51 shall not be sealed.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part as set forth above.
Case Number: 25STCV00772 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 32 AMANDA PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL INTEGRITY REALTY CORPORATION, Defendant.