Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Remove or Seal Confidential Documents from Previously Filed Motions in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Remove or Seal Confidential Documents from Previously Filed Motions in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Changjiang Li’s motion to seal is granted.

Defendant moves to seal two exhibits which were attached to his motion to quash and his motion for sanctions which were filed on December 31, 2024. Defendant indicates that the exhibits were copies of his driver’s license and his permanent residence card. These were attached as exhibits B and C to the subject motions. Defendant filed unredacted version of the motions on December 31, 2024. Defendant did not file a redacted version of the motions and simultaneously conditionally lodge the unredacted versions as required by California Rules of Court Rules 2.551(b)(4)-(5).

Before sealing a court record, a trial court must find that: (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. (CRC 2.550(d).)

The Court finds that the privacy interests of Defendant in his personal identifying information overcomes public access to the records, that interest supports sealing the records, there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced without sealing, the sealing is narrowly tailored, and there is no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. “The privacy of a settlement is generally understood and accepted in our legal system, which favors settlement and therefore supports the attendant need for confidentiality.” (Hinshaw v. Superior Court (1998) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241.)

As a result, the motion to seal is granted. To that end, Exhibits B and C to Defendant’s motion to quash filed on December 27, 2024, and Exhibits B and C to his motion for sanctions filed on December 31, are ordered sealed. As already noted, Defendant has not filed a redacted version of the subject motions. Defendant is ordered to file a redacted version of the motion to quash and the motion for sanctions which only redacts Exhibits B and C no later than February 24, 2026. In addition, given that the unredacted versions remain viewable by the public, the Clerk is directed to change the security clearance for Defendant’s motion to quash and Defendant’s motion for sanctions

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Remove or Seal Confidential Documents from Previously Filed Motions in Department 53

filed on December 31, 2024, so that they are sealed and not viewable by the public.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a response to the motion stating that she “does not object to a grant of Defendant’s Motion.” (Resp. 2:18-19.) Plaintiff, however, also indicates that she would “prefer” that the Court grant her motion to strike which is also on today’s calendar. However, as seen from the Court’s ruling on that motion, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is being dropped for defective service of notice.

The notice of motion includes the incorrect address for the Court. The correct address for Department 53 of the Sacramento Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. In addition, the notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff immediately of the correct address for Department 53 and of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Pursuant to CRC 3.1312, Defendant shall submit a proposed order in accordance with CRC 2.550(e) and 2.551(e).