Motion To Seal Exhibit A To Complaint

Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.December 2, 2016

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 71 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, SHAWN M. OLSON, ESQ. (SBN 245688) County of Orange KEVIN A. SPAINHOUR, ESQ. (SBN 182358) 02/06/2017 at 02:34:00 Pi OLSON SPAINHOUR . Clerk of the Superior Court 7372 Prince Dr. #104 By Loc Mguyen,Deputy Clerk Huntington Beach, California 92647 714-375-3720 (telephone) 714-375-3740 (fax) so@olsonspainhour.com ks@olsonspainhour.com Attorneys for Defendants: ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA GALINDO-LEFFERMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - LIMITED CIVIL CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER JUAN SILVA Case No.: 30-2016-00890217-CL-MC-CJC Assigned for all purposes to: Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Dept.: Vs. [DEFENDANTS ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA AND LINDA GALINDO-LEFFERMAN’S GALINDO-LEFFERMAN, and DOES 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR through 10 AN ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF JUAN SILVA’S COMPLAINT Defendants. AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,532.95; DECLARATION OF SHAWN M. OLSON IN SUPPORT Date: March 9, 2017 Time: 9:30 A.M. ept.: C3 Date Complaint filed: December 2, 2016 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department C3 of the above titled-Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA, defendants ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA GALINDO-LEFFERMAN (hereafter “Defendants™) will move for an order to seal Exhibit “A” attached to plaintiff JUAN SILVA’s (hereafter “Plaintiff”) complaint that was filed on December 2, 2016, which contains sensitive identifiers regarding Defendants and their DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 children, and seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,532.95 for his failure to comply with applicable court rules. This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A” was filed in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 1.201 exposing Defendants and their children’s personal and sensitive identifiers to the public as long as it remains on the Court’s electronic docket in this case. Defendants also seek sanctions against Plaintiff for violation of Rule 1.201 pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.30(b). This motion will be further based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities and the Declaration of Shawn M. Olson filed herewith, the records and files in this action, and upon such other and further evidence and argument as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: February 3, 2017 OLSON SPAINHOUR Sr For SHAWN M. OLSON, ESQ. KEVIN A. SPAINHOUR, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant: ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA GALINDO- LEFFERMAN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On December 2, 2016, plaintiff JUAN SILVA (hereafter “Plaintiff”) electronically filed a complaint against defendants ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA GALINDO- LEFFERMAN (hereafter “Defendants™) for breach of contract. (Decl. of Olson, 42). Plaintiff attached a single exhibit to his complaint, identified as Exhibit “A”, which was a copy of an alleged contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants. (Decl. of Olson, 93). Exhibit “A” included Defendants’ social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, telephone numbers, and Defendants’ children’s’ full names and dates of birth, all of which are now available for the public to view via the Court’s electronic docket. (Decl. of Olson, 94). Defendants’ now bring the Instant Motion requesting that the Court seal Exhibit “A” to protect Defendants and their children’s’ personal and sensitive identifiers and to seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,532.95 for failing to redact the information as required by California Court Rules. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT California Rules of Court, Rule 1.201 provides, in part, as follows: (a) Exclusion or redaction of identifiers To protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests, parties and their attorneys must not include, or must redact where inclusion is necessary, the following identifiers from all pleadings and other papers filed in the court's public file, whether filed in paper or electronic form, unless otherwise provided by law or ordered by the court: (1) Social security numbers. If an individual's social security number is required in a pleading or other paper filed in the public file, only the last four digits of that number may be used. (2) Financial account numbers. If financial account numbers are required in a pleading or other paper filed in the public file, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used. 1H 1 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) Responsibility of the filer The responsibility for excluding or redacting identifiers identified in (a) from all documents filed with the court rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The court clerk will not review each pleading or other paper for compliance with this provision. Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s complaint neither excluded or redacted the personal privacy identifiers of Defendants, namely their driver’s license, social security, and phone numbers. Furthermore, the Defendants children’s names and dates of birth also were not redacted from Exhibit “A”. There is no good cause or excuse for Plaintiff to file Exhibit “A” without redacting or otherwise excluding Defendants and their children’s’ personal and sensitive identifiers. As long as Exhibit “A” is available via the internet, the Defendants and their entire family are at risk of identity theft and are likely to suffer irreparable damages. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Court seal Exhibit “A” attached to Plaintiff’s complaint filed on December 2, 2016. IIL.PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO REDACT PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.30 (b) and (d) state, in pertinent part, the following: (b) Sanctions In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules. (d) Award of expenses In addition to the sanctions awardable under (b), the court may order the person who has violated an applicable rule to pay to the party aggrieved by the violation that party's reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions or the order to show cause. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -4 10 1 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As discussed above, Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 1.201 by not redacting or otherwise excluding Defendants and their family’s personal identifiers from Exhibit “A” attached to the complaint filed on December 2, 2016. Defendants and their children’s sensitive information, including social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers, are now in accessible to the public at large via the Court’s electronic docket. Based on the above, as well as the mandates of Rule 2.30 (b)(d), Plaintiff should be sanctioned at a minimum for the costs and attorney’s fees associated with having to bring the Instant Motion for Plaintiff’s failure to redact personal identifiers, which amount to $1,532.95. (Decl. of Olson, 16). IV.CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants request that the Court order Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s complaint be sealed in order to remove Defendants and their family’s personal identifiers from the electronic Court docket. Additionally, Defendants seek sanction against Plaintiff in the minimum amount of $1,532.95 for Plaintiff’s failure to redact or otherwise exclude Defendants’ sensitive and personal identifiers from Exhibit “A”. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: February 3, 2017 OLSON SPAINHOUR SHAWN M. OLSON, ESQ. KEVIN A. SPAINHOUR, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant: ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA GALINDO- LEFFERMAN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SHAWN M. OLSON 1. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of California, including the U.S. District for the Central District Court of California, and am currently representing the defendants ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN and LINDA GALINDO- LEFFERMAN (hereafter “Defendants™) in the above entitled action. I make this declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion for an Order Sealing Exhibit “A” to plaintiff JUAN SILVA’s (hereafter “Plaintiff””) Complaint and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and the facts stated in this Declaration are based upon my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify as to the facts stated herein. 2. On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants electronically with the Orange County Superior Court. 3. Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint was on exhibit labeled “Exhibit ‘A’”, which included a copy of an alleged contract that Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached. 4. After reviewing Exhibit “A”, I discovered that the documents that were included in the exhibit reflected Defendants, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers and phone numbers. Additionally, Exhibit “A” contained the full names and dates of birth of Defendants’ children. 5. Nowhere in Exhibit “A” did it appear that Plaintiff made any efforts to redact any sensitive or personal identifiers as required by California Court Rules, thus requiring the filing of the Instant Motion. 6. I spent 30 minutes researching and outlining this motion, billed at $350 per hour. My paralegal has spent 1.5 hours drafting this Motion and preparing the proposed order, billed at $160.00 per hour, for a total of $240. I anticipate that it will take me an hour to review the Opposition and prepare a reply. In addition, it will take 2 hours to attend and argue the motion, for a total of $1,532.95 incurred in seeking an order to seal Exhibit “A”. My hourly rates are within the range of fees that other attorneys with my experience charge in Orange County, California and this rate has been approved by other courts. I have been in practice for over 10 years and have engaged in several jury trials and bench trials to verdict. 11 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 3rd day of February, 2017 in Huntington Beach, California. / By: S77 7, SHAWN M. OLSON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -7 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am an employee in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 7372 Prince Drive, Suite 104, Huntington Beach, CA 92647. On February 6, 2017, I served the foregoing document(s) described, DEFENDANTS ERNEST D. LEFFERMAN AND LINDA GALINDO-LEFFERMAN’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF JUAN SILVA’S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,532.95; DECLARATION OF SHAWN M. OLSON IN SUPPORT, to the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Juan Silva 10220 Monte Vista Avenue Montclair, CA 91763 XX (BY MAIL) The package was delivered with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily” familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. The package was deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the above listed parties. Via facsimile to the email address listed above. _ (OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California, United Postal Service. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily” familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. The package was deposited with United Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. February 6, 2017 Date Michael Moore DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS -8