From Thursday’s decision by California Court of Appeal Justice Natalie Stone, joined by Justice John Segal and L.A. Superior Court Judge Alexander Giza, in J.E. v. A.C.:
In April 2016 J.E. filed a petition for a domestic violence restraining order against his then-ex-girlfriend, A.C., and a temporary restraining order was granted pending the hearing on a permanent restraining order. J.E. did not appear at the hearing, and the court dissolved the temporary restraining order and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
More than eight years after filing the petition, in November 2024, J.E. filed a motion to “seal or destroy” the record of the restraining order proceeding. He cited the “sensitive nature of this matter and the parties’ current relationship” and argued “[p]ublic dissemination of this motion and the underlying records could cause irreparable harm to the parties’ reputations and privacy,” as well as “professional challenges[ ] and emotional distress.” …
J.E. supported his motion with a declaration stating he and A.C. had reconciled and were now life partners. He explained he requested the restraining order when the parties “were navigating a complex and emotionally charged dynamic, which led to misunderstandings and impulsive actions on my part.” J.E. stated A.C.’s attempts to contact him were “not motivated by malice or harm but rather by her deep affection and immaturity at the time.”
He stated the continued existence of the records had drawn “unwanted scrutiny” in his personal and professional life and undermined the couple’s efforts to “build a positive future together.” He concluded, “I deeply regret filing the restraining order petition in 2016 and have since come to understand the situation in its proper context. [A.C.] had no harmful intentions, and my actions were a reaction to misunderstanding and emotional distress. Destroying these records would bring closure and allow us to continue building our lives together.” …
Rules 2.550 and 2.551, which govern requests to seal court records, “expressly implement the First Amendment principles espoused in NBC Subsidiary [v. Superior Court (Cal. 1999)] and establish a presumption that ‘court records … be open’ unless the law requires confidentiality.” Under rule 2.550(d), a court may order a record filed under seal “only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (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.” …
The [trial] court recognized California’s “very strong and important” policy favoring open courts and explained that sealing required a “specific reason” sufficient to overcome that policy. (See rule 2.550(d)(1) [a court may order record filed under seal “only if … [t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record”].) In his motion, J.E. asserted that the records caused “unwarranted scrutiny in both [his] personal and professional life” and hampered his and A.C.’s efforts to “build a positive future together.” But the court properly concluded those generalized concerns did not constitute an overriding interest sufficient to overcome the public right of access, concluding, “On what you’ve shown me, there’s no basis to seal these records anymore than anybody else’s domestic violence prevention act records would be sealed.
J.E. then informed the court he was “a public figure now after … doing a documentary” and people were using the restraining order filing against him and A.C. in other courts. The court responded by noting that a federal public defender had sought access to the case file in connection with another case, and stated, “[I]f there are other cases and a federal public defender is looking into this file, that’s a whole other reason why public access to court records is important.” The court appropriately determined that J.E.’s assertion that he had become a public figure did not establish that he had an interest supporting sealing the record that overrode the public right of access.
On appeal J.E. asserts he is facing extraordinary circumstances that distinguish his filing from others because he “has become a public figure as the documented target of a federal murder-for-hire plot that received widespread media attention,” and the court records involving his request for a restraining order have created an “enduring stigma” for him. He asserts the records have “been used to mischaracterize [him] in online searches and background checks, thereby impeding his employment, professional credibility, and personal safety.”
However, J.E. did not include this information in his motion filed in the trial court or raise these points at the hearing. Therefore, we may not consider these additional alleged facts in determining whether the court properly denied the motion to seal….
J.E. also asserts the court should have considered “partial or tailored sealing—such as removing the case from online docket systems or restricting access through in-person review.” But he did not ask the trial court for that relief, so he has forfeited that argument….
An L.A. Times article about J.E.’s documentary and the murder-for-hire plot is here. Though the court elected to refer to the parties with their initials in the opinion, there was no order providing for pseudonymity (and I doubt such an order would have been granted even if the parties had asked for it). The parties’ full names therefore appear in the docket.
