CourthouseDirect fee-based search for Los Angeles, California recorded documents. Los Angeles County Environmental Health food facility inspection results and facility closures. Check the status of your Los Angeles County voter registration. Search Free Public Records. Free Public Records at SearchSystems.
Search Systems Premium Criminal Records.
Bankruptcies, Judgments, Liens. Tenant Screening. People Search. Reverse Phone Lookup. Background Check. Instant Email Lookup. Instant Property Report. Los Angeles County. Beaches It is all about beaches in L. Codes Los Angeles County ordinances. Coroner Unidentified Persons Los Angeles County Coroner index of unidentified persons by case number, gender, race, and date last seen.
Deaths Before RootsWeb. Restaurant Inspections Los Angeles County Environmental Health food facility inspection results and facility closures. Traffic Reports Sigalert.
Voters Check the status of your Los Angeles County voter registration. Phone: JOHN C.
Phone: Total Students: ADA S. R AVE. Phone: Total Students: 2, Phone: Total Students: 3, Phone: Total Students: 1, ANNA M.
Burkle merely argues that NBC Subsidiary involved the closure of court proceedings, not the closure of records, and that sealed records can be accessed again upon a showing of good cause, whereas prejudice from exclusion of the public from a trial may be irreversible. Call for help with your child support case today. Cellular mechanisms of GC action. What to Do Before an Election. Code of Civ.
ARMA J. BERT M. ELM DR. ELY ST. DEAN L. EARL E. EMMA W. FRED E. Six months after the enactment of section Burkle's income and expense declaration, notices of lis pendens, motions to which the parties' post-marital agreement was an exhibit, pleadings that contained street addresses of real property, a motion for summary adjudication, discovery motions, and so on. Burkle's ex parte application, arguing that the press and the public have a presumptive right of access to records and proceedings in divorce cases, and that section In his opposition, Mr.
Burkle argued that section The press also argued that Mr. Burkle bore the burden of demonstrating that section Moreover, the press argued, even if a compelling interest existed in financial privacy, section Burkle advanced similar arguments. The court concludes the statute is overbroad because it mandates sealing entire pleadings to protect a limited class of specified material.
The court also observes that the defect is readily curable by the Legislature. The trial court explained it had no difficulty finding that a compelling governmental interest underpinned section Thus, a page pleading filled with legal argument of genuine public interest must be sealed if a party's home address appears even in a footnote. The trial court thereupon vacated its provisional sealing order, but ordered the pleadings to remain sealed for 60 days to permit Mr.
Burkle to seek appellate review. This appeal followed. Superior Court 20 Cal. Superior Court U. NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal. The presumption of openness, or preclusion of closure, in ordinary civil cases applies unless the trial court 1 provides notice of a contemplated closure, and 2 holds a hearing and expressly finds that:. This case requires us to decide whether the presumption of openness applicable to substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases likewise applies to court records in divorce proceedings and, if so, whether section We conclude the presumption of openness applies, and section Consequently, court records in divorce cases, as in other civil cases, are presumptively open.
Moreover, the statute arguably meets the second requirement, as we ordinarily defer to legislative findings on the probability of prejudice, in the form of identity theft and the like, to the privacy interest protected by the statute. However, the statute clearly runs afoul of the third and fourth requirements, because it is neither narrowly tailored to serve the privacy interest being protected nor is it the least restrictive means of protecting those privacy interests. In the succeeding sections, we discuss each point necessary to our conclusion that section We begin where the Supreme Court ended in NBC Subsidiary, with the now settled principle that substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases are presumptively open.
The court reached that conclusion after exhaustively analyzing federal and state precedents on the First Amendment right of access.
These considerations, first identified in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Virginia U. After analyzing the reasoning in Globe and subsequent high court cases, our Supreme Court observed that:. Under these circumstances, we believe there is no reason to doubt that, in general, the First Amendment right of access applies to civil proceedings as well as to criminal proceedings. We do not think so. As to those proceedings, footnote 30 referred to differing opinions from other courts in cases involving parental termination proceedings and juvenile proceedings, and listed the Family Code, as well as the Code of Civil Procedure and the Welfare and Institutions Code, as providing for the closure of certain civil proceedings.
Burkle relies on footnote 30 to conclude that NBC Subsidiary requirements do not apply to divorce proceedings, we do not agree. The Supreme Court's care in confining its decision to the case at hand, and its mention of the Family Code among statutes that provide for closure of certain proceedings, does not portend or imply that divorce proceedings are not among the ordinary civil proceedings that are presumptively open. The court simply did not address that question. We therefore assess those two considerations. First, as NBC Subsidiary directs, we look to historical tradition, and find nothing to suggest that, in general, civil trials in divorce cases have not historically been open to the public just as any other civil trial.
To be sure, section of the Family Code provides an exception to the general statutory rule that the sittings of every court are to be public. Code of Civ. The existence of an expressly limited exception to a general rule, however, does not obviate the general rule.
California's Public Records Act ("PRA") is a California statute that affords the public the right to inspect, and be provided a copy of, most of the written information. Divorce Record Information. Where Divorce Records Are Available. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk does NOT record or house.
We are not aware of, and Mr. Burkle does not offer, any cases or commentary supporting the notion that divorce proceedings have ever been generally excepted from California's historical tradition of presumptively open civil proceedings. DePasquale U. Burkle insists divorce cases are not ordinary civil proceedings.
Consequently, the presumption of openness does not apply and NBC Subsidiary's four-part test should not be used.
The argument misses the mark for two reasons. Second, the contention that family law proceedings have their own rules and may be considered sui generis is correct, but irrelevant.
The same may be said of criminal proceedings and probate proceedings, which are nonetheless presumptively open. Globe, supra, U.