DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23STCV27944·la·Civil·Employment action
Hearing in 1 dayDENIED without prejudice

Heldman v. Liberty Utilities (Park Water) Corp., et al.

Motion to Seal

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
310
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffFranklin Heldman
DefendantLiberty Utilities (Park Water) Corp.
DefendantLiberty Utilities Services Corp.
DefendantLiberty Utilities (Apple Valley Ranchos Water) Corp.
DefendantLiberty Utilities

Ruling

Case No.: 23STCV27944 Matter: Motion to Seal Ruling: The Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is an employment action. On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff Franklin Heldman filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Liberty Utilities (Park Water) Corp., Liberty Utilities Services Corp., Liberty Utilities (Apple Valley Ranchos Water) Corp., and Liberty Utilities for (1) whistleblower retaliation, (2) age discrimination, (3) failure to prevent discrimination, (4) wrongful termination, and (5) breach of implied in fact contract.

Plaintiff now seeks to seal Exhibit 6 in support of his motion to compel further responses. Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to public review. (Cal. Rules of Court 2.550(c); see also Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3, subd. (b)(1) ["The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business"].)

"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 NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)

Plaintiff failed to explain what overriding interest or harm is at issue, only providing in conclusory fashion that a protective order applies. Therefore, the Motion is denied without prejudice. In the future, all documents lodged or filed under seal are to be emailed to [email protected] without any redactions. Moving party to give notice.

Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 310 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Case Name: Kalajian v. General Motors LLC, et al.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share