Corey vs. The Regents of the University of California

Based on all the above, Song-Beverly claims cannot be transferred, assigned or subrogated and, consequently, Plaintiff Travelers lacks standing to assert the same.

Moreover, leave to amend is denied: A court should sustain a demurrer without leave to amend where there is no “reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Chiatello v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.) Additionally, leave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law. (Lawrence v. Bank of Am. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.)

1. Motion to Strike

The Motion to Strike brought by Defendant Kia America, Inc. is MOOT, given the accompanying order on the Demurrer.

Case Management Conference is continued to November 19, 2026, at 09:00 am.

Moving party to give notice.

6 Corey vs. The Plaintiff Jacie Ruelas Corey’s motion for in camera review and to seal certain Regents of the documents is DENIED in part. University of California The court grants Plaintiff’s request for in camera review and has reviewed the documents lodged with the court with this motion in camera. The court will not entertain any further stand-alone requests for in camera review that is not specifically related to a pending motion.

The court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to seal and/or for a protective order as not ripe and procedurally improper. However, the court does not require Plaintiff to publicly file the documents lodged with the motion at this time and Plaintiff may withdraw the lodged material.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal and issue a protective order over certain medical records and Plaintiff’s notes on said medical records. The motion is not tied to any pending discovery motion, a pending motion for which these documents must be filed as evidence, but sealed, etc. It appears that Plaintiff is seeking a blanket seal of these documents for any use in this case in the future. The court finds that Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient procedural or substantive basis to do so.

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1079.) “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)

“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2) [motion must be served on all parties]).

“If the court denies the motion or application to seal, the moving party may notify the court that the lodged record is to be filed unsealed. This notification must be received within 10 days of the order denying the motion or application to seal, unless otherwise ordered by the court. On receipt of this notification, the clerk must unseal and file the record. If the moving party does not notify the court within 10 days of the order, the clerk must (1) return the lodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete the lodged record if it is in electronic form.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 2.551(b)(6)).

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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); See also Timothy W. v. Julie W. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 648, 656.)

(1) If the court grants an order sealing a record and if the sealed record is in paper format, the clerk must substitute on the envelope or container for the label required by (d)(2) a label prominently stating “SEALED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON (DATE),” and must replace the cover sheet required by (d)(3) with a filed-endorsed copy of the court's order. If the sealed record is in electronic form, the clerk must file the court's order, maintain the record ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the record as sealed by court order on a specified date.

(2) The order must state whether--in addition to the sealed records--the order itself, the register of actions, any other court records, or any other records relating to the case are to be sealed. 10

(3) The order must state whether any person other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.

(4) Unless the sealing order provides otherwise, it prohibits the parties from disclosing the contents of any materials that have been sealed in anything that is subsequently publicly filed.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e).)

(1) An order sealing the record must:

(A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and

(B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e).)

“While the findings may be set forth in cursory terms, ‘[i]f the trial court fails to make the required findings, the order is deficient and cannot support sealing.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Tamir, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 1079.)

Here, Plaintiff has not met this standard. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to establish that no less restrictive means exist. There is no pending motion that requires Plaintiff to disclose any of this information. Plaintiff has not identified any pending discovery request or court order that requires such disclosure. Plaintiff’s complaint centers around information in the medical records. To the extent that Plaintiff relies on these medical records to establish Plaintiff’s case, Defendants would be entitled to review them to prepare for their defense. Further, Plaintiff failed to follow the procedural rules to seal and/or seek a protective order, particularly by failing to serve the moving papers on Defendants.

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED in part, without prejudice to Plaintiff meeting and conferring on a protective order with Defendant related to any medical records.

Moving party to give notice.

11