Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (M.P.R.) (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 discusses the issue of sealing court records:
[1] Public policy requires public records and documents to be available for public inspection to prevent secrecy in public affairs. ( Craemer v. Superior Court (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 216 , 222 [71 Cal.Rptr. 193].) "[W]here there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed." ( Ibid .)
"[I]t is a first principle that the people have the right to know what is done in their courts." ( In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 530 [34 P. 227].) The public has a legitimate interest in access to court documents because "f public court business is conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism." ( Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777 , 784 [136 Cal.Rptr. 821].)
Although there is no specific statutory requirement for access to court documents, both the federal (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.) and the state (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a)) Constitutions provide broad access rights to judicial records in criminal and civil cases. ( Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 106 , 111 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 841].) "A trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public property. . . . There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire [in] proceedings before it." ( Craig v. Harney (1947) 331 U.S. 367, 374 [67 S.Ct. 1249, 1254, 91 L.Ed. 1546].)
Court records are available to the public in general, including news reporters, unless a specific exception makes specific records nonpublic. ( Estate of Hearst , supra , 67 Cal.App.3d 777 , 782.) Statutory exemptions to disclosure of court records exist, fn. 9 as do judicially created exceptions, generally temporary in nature. ( Id . at p. 783.)
[2] "The court . . . [possesses] limited power, exercisable under exceptional circumstances and on a showing of good cause, to restrict public access to portions of court records on a temporary basis." ( Estate of Hearst , supra , 67 Cal.App.3d 777 , 784-785.) Policy reasons to restrict access are "anything which tends to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to feel has a tendency to be injurious to the public or the public good." ( Craemer v. Superior Court , supra , 265 Cal.App.2d 216 , 222.) [63 Cal.App.4th 374]
Rule 11.6 of the Coordinated Rules of the Superior and Municipal Courts of San Diego County expresses the policy "that confidentiality agreements and protective orders are disfavored and should be recognized and approved by the court only when there is a genuine trade secret or privilege to be protected. [¶] Such agreements will not be recognized or approved by the court absent a particularized showing (document by document) that secrecy is in the public interest, the proponent has a cognizable interest in the material; (e.g., the material contains trade secrets, privileged information, or is otherwise protected by law from disclosure), and that disclosure would cause serious harm."
The burden rests on the party seeking to deny public access to court records to establish compelling reasons why and to what extent the records should be made private. ( Estate of Hearst , supra , 67 Cal.App.3d 777 , 785.) Where the relief extends to sealing permanent court records, the court must be careful to limit its denial of access by narrow and well-defined orders. ( Id . at p. 785.) Due to its temporary nature and its infringement upon the public right to know, a sealing order in a civil case is always subject to continuing review and modification, if not termination, upon changed circumstances. ( Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp . (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308 , 317 [196 Cal.Rptr. 871].)
_________________________________
Sealing of records and denial of public access to court
proceedings is a hot topic in judicial and legal circles.
It comes up in high profile criminal cases (like Kobe)
and in cases of privacy (like the Copley civil case, which involved the rape of a minor).
It also arises in cases of product liability where manufacturers want to have settlement records
sealed. Other claimants want access for obvious reasons.
As you can see, sealing of public court records
is not favored. There are good reasons for that,
as such proceedings are to be public to avoid the specter of secrecy.
My own feelings are that it depends on the case and
the reason for the request to seal or unseal.
IOW, an ad hoc determination rather than a black and
white yes or no approach............... |
