California Appellate Courts
California Law Case Summaries
September 22, 2003
| Home | Table of Contents | Table of Forms | Law Journals | FRCP-Appendix of Forms | Glossaries |
|
|
California Appellate Courts |
||||||||
|
California Law Case Summaries |
|||||||||
|
September 22, 2003 |
|||||||||
|
Vcielaw.com |
| California Courts Directory |
| Family Law |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
California
Appellate Court
Case Law Case
Summaries:
September 22, 2003
California
Appellate Court
Case
Summaries: - September 22, 2003
CALIFORNIA APPELLATE DISTRICTS
DAILY OPINION SUMMARIES - September 22, 2003
Date: Mon 9/22/2003 5:43 PM
==============================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INSURANCE LAW
* HUFFY CORP. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (WINTERTHUR
SWISS INS. CO.)
==============================================
CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INSURANCE LAW
HUFFY CORP. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (WINTERTHURSWISS
INS. CO.) , No. B166781 (Cal. 2d App. Dist. September 22, 2003)
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 1, 2003, defendant, Huffy Corporation, filed a mandate petition which seeks to set aside an order denying its cross-summary adjudication motion in an insurance coverage dispute in two related cases pending in the respondent court. Plaintiff filed its mandate petition along with 2,589 pages of sealed exhibits. Concerned that the such a number of pages of sealed exhibits in an ordinary coverage dispute might be inconsistent with established California law, we afforded the parties an opportunity to brief the issue of whether any or all of the documents should be sealed. Only defendant responded to our inquiry concerning the sealing of the documents. Recognizing the legal untenability of arguing that all 2,589 pages should remain sealed, defendant narrowed its list of papers it desired to have remain under seal. Plaintiffs have interposed no objection to the unsealing of any of the documents. We now conclude that none of the documents may remain sealed. The 2,589 pages of exhibits are ordered returned to defense counsel. Defendant shall have 10 days to file any documents it desires but they may not be filed under seal.
A. Disclosure Principles
The present case involves the question of whether to allow documents filed in
support of the mandate petition to remain sealed. We addressed this issue in
related circumstances in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1279-1287, where the trial court had refused to
seal documents and the defendant sought to compel their sealing. In Universal
City Studios, we concluded none of the documents the defendant sought to
seal could be sealed given controlling California law. We described the
controlling legal authority as follows: "In NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.
Superior Court [(1999)] 20 Cal.4th [1178,] 1217-1218, the California Supreme
Court identified the constitutional requirements applicable to a request to seal
court records as follows: '[B]efore substantive courtroom proceedings are closed
or transcripts are ordered sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and
expressly find that (i) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure
and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability that the interest will
be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or
sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the {Slip Opn. Page 10} overriding
interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the
overriding interest.' (Original italics & fns. omitted.) In terms of trial
courts, the Judicial Council promulgated rules 243.1 and 243.2 which govern
sealing requests in the trial courts in order to comply with the constitutional
standards set forth in the NBC Subsidiary decision. (In re Providian
Credit Card Cases (2002)
96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298, fn. 3 []; Jud. Council of Cal., Advisory Com. com.,
reprinted at 23 pt. 1 West's Ann. Codes, Rules (2003 supp.) foll. rule 243.1,
pp. 285-286.) For reviewing courts, the Judicial Council promulgated rule 12.5.
As in the case of rules 243.1 and 243.2, rule 12.5 was adopted in response to
the NBC Subsidiary decision. (Jud. Council of Cal., Advisory Com. com.,
reprinted at 23 pt. 1 West's Ann. Codes, Rules (2003 supp.) foll. rule 12.5, p.
61.)" (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 110
Cal.App.4th at p. 1279, fn. omitted.)
_________________________
Have a BEAUTIFUL DAY!!!!!
Copyright 2000
™©
