Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCP00358 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCP00358, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCP00358 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: A

Petitioner’s Motion for Order to File Under Seal Petition for Change of Name and Related Documents

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner’s Motion for Order to File Under Seal Petition for Change of Name and Related Documents is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a name change petition action. On July 20, 2022, Petitioner submitted a Petition for Change of Name. On July 27, Petitioner filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion and OSC Re: Name Change are set for December 6, 2022.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner seeks an order to file name change petition under seal. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request is DENIED.

“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an 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. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).) Here, Petitioner meets this requirement, having submitted a memorandum and declaration.

“The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596.) Therefore, before a trial court orders a record sealed, it must hold a hearing and make express findings set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d):

(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.

(Id.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

A court’s order allowing documents to be filed under seal must contain express factual findings establishing the five factors. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).

First, the court finds there is not an overriding interest that justifies closing records to the public. Here, Petitioner states Petitioner’s husband is a criminal defense lawyer who has received death threats. (Petitioner Decl., ¶ 6, 10.) Petitioner also states Petitioner’s husband had a bullet shot through the window of husband’s law office in 2018. (Petitioner Decl., ¶ 5.) However, Petitioner does not provide any additional dates or circumstances regarding when these threats occurred and the sole incident named by Petitioner happened four years ago. Thus, Petitioner has not established there is an immediate threat that overrides the public’s interest in access to judicial records.

Second, the court finds there is no overriding interest in sealing the record. Petitioner claims Petitioner’s minor son’s name change petition was sealed but does not give the date or circumstances of that order. And while Petitioner cited to Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, the court in that case noted public access should only be restricted on a temporary basis as long as the petitioners were under “clear and present danger of attack.” (Id., at p. 785.) Unlike Hearst, Petitioner has not demonstrated there is a clear and present danger.

Thus, Petitioner has not established why the public’s right to access court records should be restricted in this case. Although Petitioner has made allegations of potential threats to Petitioner’s family, Petitioner does not provide any specific details or dates beyond one incident that occurred four years ago at Petitioner’s husband’s work.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.