Judge Layne H. Melzer, Case 2021-01237075 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2021-01237075, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Marielle Violet Rose (fka Heesoo Jang)
Motion to Seal

Petitioner Marielle Violet Rose’s (fka Heesoo Jang) Motion to Seal Court Records is granted.

Generally, “court records are presumed to be open,” unless the law requires confidentiality. (Cal. R. Ct. Rule 2.550, subd. (c).)

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. R. Ct. Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).) The moving party bears the burden of providing “a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894 [motion to seal properly denied where moving party “never identified any specific facts disclosure of which could harm any identified interest].)

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish that:

• there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

• the overriding interest supports sealing the record;

• a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

• the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and,

• no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. R. Ct. Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

Here, Petitioner has met her burden of showing she should be granted the relief requested. Petitioner explains that, throughout her childhood, her and her mother were the victims of violence at the hands of her father. (ROA 27 [Petitioner Decl. at ¶ 4].) They have been living separately from her father since 2014. (Petitioner Decl. at ¶ 5.) While she does maintain “remote contact” with her father, he is unable to locate or harass her. (Id. at ¶ 5.) At the time she applied for her name change, she “was facing serious health issues and it was uncertain as to whether [she] would ever work or live independently from my mother.” (Petitioner Decl. at ¶ 6.) Since then, Petitioner has had two major surgeries, and is “expected to be healthy enough to work in the coming months.” When Petitioner began looking into applying for employment, she realized that “the Court's public record listing [her] new legal name would pose the risk of [her] father locating [her] and resuming his acts of violence.” (Id.) Petitioner attests her father is “well-known in our community and has many connections.” (Petitioner Decl. at ¶ 7.)

And, there were “numerous times” in her life where she was identified and associated” with her father just by her given name, and her “whereabouts and activities” were reported to him. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Thus, Petitioner fears that, during the employment process, prospective employers will be able to identify her and inform her father where she works, and allow him to gain access to her work schedule, whereabouts and other information. This poses a “grave risk of harm” to her and her mother. If the records are not sealed, Petitioner believes her father will be given the “opportunity to locate [them]” and “harm [them] as he has done in the past.” (Petitioner Decl. at ¶¶ 8-10.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to these records and supports sealing the record. Petitioner has explained, in detail, the harm that could fall on her and her mother if her father is able to locate them, and the history of violence that led to them living apart. A substantial probability exists that the safety of Petitioner and her mother will be prejudiced if these record are not sealed. The proposed sealing is “narrowly tailored” in that there is “no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

Accordingly, the Court orders the Clerk to seal all case documents , in this matter, including this minute order, with the exception of ROA nos. 11 [02/16/22 Clerk’s Certificate of Service], 31 [05/16/23 Minute Order], and 32 [05/16/23 Clerk’s Certificate of Service], which do not include Petitioner’s current name or her full former name.