Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCP00322, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 20BBCP00322    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ANALYSIS: 

RJN

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of Executive Order 14168 and its accompanying memorandum are GRANTED as mandated by Evid. Code §§452 and 453. The Court finds the documents are subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 452 and 453, as they constitute “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” However, the Court’s decision does not rest on these documents.

Discussion

Europa Streetman Warring (Petitioner) moves this Court for an order sealing the entire record for LASC Case No. 20BBCP00322. On January 8, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner’s request for Change of Name and Issuance of New Birth Certificate. On November 21, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to amend the January 8, 2021 decree. This motion was granted so that the word “gender” could be corrected to the “sex”, as required for Petitioner to obtain a new birth certificate from the Texas Department of State Health Services.

In moving to seal the record, Petitioner urges the Court to retroactively apply Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437. This section provides:

If a person who seeks a change of gender and sex identifier pursuant to Section 103430 or a single petition for change to the petitioner's name and to recognize the change of the petitioner's gender and sex identifier pursuant to Section 103435 is under 18 years of age, the petition and any papers associated with the proceeding shall be kept confidential by the court. The court shall limit access to the court records in the proceeding, including the register of actions, to the minor, any adult who signed the petition, the minor's parents or guardians or guardians ad litem, any individual who is subject to an order to show cause related to the petition, and any attorneys representing these individuals.

Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437 became effective January 1, 2024, having been enacted by the California Legislature in 2023 as part of Assembly Bill 223. In so doing, the Legislature found that:

It is in the best interest for the public to keep these records confidential to ensure the privacy and safety of transgender and nonbinary youth.  Transgender and nonbinary youth are 2 to 2.5 times as likely to experience depressive symptoms, seriously consider suicide, and attempt suicide compared to their cisgender LGBTQ peers.  Being outed is a traumatic event for any individual, especially for individuals under 18 years of age.  Allowing our children to choose when and how they decide to share their personal details is vital in protecting their mental and physical health.

(Stats.2023, c. 221 (A.B.223), § 2.)

While the Court agrees that the rationale of Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437 is certainly relevant to this motion, it does not find sufficient grounds to support its retroactive application. A statue should not be applied retroactively unless the Court finds its language specifically provides for such application, or the Legislature otherwise clearly signaled its intent for retroactive application. (Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 841.) Here, nothing in the language of Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437 or its legislative materials makes clear that a retroactive application was intended. Even were this not the case, it is clear that Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437 is intended to apply to minors. Given Petitioner is now an adult, it is unclear if Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437 would even apply to her; however, the rationale and findings are persuasive.

Despite the inapplicability of Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437, the Court finds Petitioner is entitled to an order sealing the record. As made clear by the Court of Appeal in In re M.T. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 322, a sealing order may issue where a transgender adult has made a sufficient showing of need under CRC Rule 2.550(d).

CRC Rule 2.550(d) requires a Court to make express factual findings as to the following:

(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.

Here, Petitioner submits that she is now a 21 year old college student who has held her transgender status in close confidence. (Wareing Decl. ¶ 1.)  Petitioner represents that no one outside of her family know of her status. (Id.) Petitioner states that she has presented as a woman throughout her college career, but experiences significant fear of reprisal should her transgender status be revealed. Petitioner additionally states her worry that future employment as an engineer may be compromised if her transgender status is discoverable via backgrounds checks by propositae employers. (Wareing Decl. ¶ 2.)

As noted by the In re M.T., discrimination against transgender individuals is a matter of salient public concern. While the court did not seek to retroactively apply Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437, it relied upon the legislative material supporting it as evidence of both (1) a transgender person’s right to privacy and (2) the rampant discrimination and abuse of transgender persons. (In re M.T., supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at 342.) The court also noted other instances in which the California Legislature has acknowledged the privacy rights of a person seeking a name change for reasons of safety. (Id. at 827, citing Gov. Code § 6205 [requiring name changes be sealed where the petitioner sought the change to void domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or human trafficking.”].)

The Court finds that Petitioner has made a sufficient factual showing as to an overriding privacy interest. As noted in In re M.T., a transgender person has a clear privacy right in concealing their identity to be free from harm. Further, the legislative history of Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 103437 makes clear that where this privacy interest is not protected, young transgender persons suffer the very real threat of abuse, harassment, and discrimination.

The Court does note that, unlike the petitioner in In re M.T., Petitioner has not submitted any declaration as to past abuse based on her transgender status. The Court finds this is of no import, as requiring Petitioner to have suffered abuse resulting from her transgender status would ultimately defeat the entire point of recognizing her privacy interest. In the Court’s view, it is enough that Petitioner has submitted her sworn statement attesting to the very real fear of harassment if her status is discovered combined with the findings of the California Legislature.  Furthermore, the matter is of little public concern relative to the Petitioner’s privacy rights under Article I, Section I of the California Constitution (Californians have certain inalienable rights, including the right to privacy).

Lastly, the Court finds the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and that no less restrictive means exists for safeguarding Petitioner’s privacy right. The discovery of any of the documents Petitioner requests be sealed would result in compromising her privacy and the potential compromise of her safety. Further, any person with a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s identity would still be entitled to ask the Court to unseal the records pursuant to CRC Rule 2.551(h)(2).

In short, the Court has made the requisite factual findings under CRC Rule 2.550(d) and holds that the entire record should be sealed. Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Europa Streetman Wareing’s Motion to Seal came on regularly for hearing on April 25, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION IS GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.