Burkle v. Burkle

California Court of Appeal
135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 805 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute that mandates the sealing of entire court pleadings in divorce proceedings upon a party's request violates the First Amendment right of public access to court records because it is not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding privacy interest, and less restrictive means are available.

Facts:

Janet E. Burkle filed a petition in a California court to dissolve her marriage to Ronald W. Burkle.
The Burkle family was considered to be of 'high public interest.'
Concerned about potential harm to their son, Ronald Burkle initially sought to protect certain financial information.
A court ordered the redaction of specific identifying information, such as residence addresses and account numbers, but refused to redact account balances or seal a postmarital agreement in its entirety.
Shortly after this order, the California Legislature enacted Family Code section 2024.6, requiring courts to seal pleadings containing financial asset and liability information upon a party's request.
Citing the new statute, Ronald Burkle filed an application to seal 28 different pleadings, including income declarations, notices of lis pendens, and various motions.

Procedural Posture:

Janet E. Burkle filed a petition against Ronald W. Burkle for dissolution of marriage in a California superior court (trial court).
Ronald Burkle moved the trial court to seal or redact certain pleadings containing financial information.
The trial court granted the motion in part, ordering redaction of specific information but refusing to seal entire documents.
Following the enactment of Family Code section 2024.6, Ronald Burkle filed an ex parte application in the trial court to seal 28 pleadings under the new statute.
The Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press (the press) successfully intervened to oppose the sealing application on constitutional grounds.
The trial court found Family Code section 2024.6 to be unconstitutional and denied Ronald Burkle's application to seal the documents.
Ronald Burkle (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does California Family Code section 2024.6, which requires a court to seal any pleading in a dissolution proceeding that lists financial assets and liabilities upon a party's request, violate the First Amendment right of public access to court records?

Opinions:

Majority - Boland, J.

Yes. California Family Code section 2024.6 is unconstitutional on its face because it operates as an undue burden on the First Amendment right of public access to court records. The court reasoned that the First Amendment provides a presumptive right of access to records in divorce proceedings, just as in other ordinary civil cases. Any statute restricting this right must satisfy the strict scrutiny test articulated in NBC Subsidiary, which requires that the restriction serve an overriding interest, be narrowly tailored, and be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. While protecting financial privacy from crimes like identity theft is an overriding interest, section 2024.6 fails the other parts of the test. The statute is not narrowly tailored because it mandates the sealing of entire pleadings—potentially hundreds of pages of public interest—if they contain even a single piece of identifying information, such as a home address in a footnote. Furthermore, less restrictive means, such as redacting only the specific sensitive information (e.g., account numbers), are available to achieve the state's interest without completely closing off public access to the court records.

Analysis:

This decision affirms that the First Amendment right of public access applies with full force to divorce proceedings and their associated court records in California, treating them like other civil matters. It sets a significant precedent by striking down a mandatory, non-discretionary sealing statute, reinforcing that legislative attempts to protect privacy in court filings must be narrowly tailored and employ the least restrictive means possible. The court's championing of redaction over wholesale sealing serves as a crucial guide for future legislation and judicial practice, ensuring that public oversight of the justice system is maintained while still allowing for the protection of genuinely sensitive personal information.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Burkle v. Burkle (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature