Sealing of Divorce Files Ruled Illegal

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Monday that a new state law permitting divorce case documents to be sealed in their entirety -- even if only a small portion contains personal information -- violates the 1st Amendment.

The law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in June and hailed by privacy rights advocates, is so broad that it runs contrary to the constitutional right of public access to court records, Judge Roy L. Paul said in a 10-page decision.

Responding to arguments that sealing records helped protect litigants from identity theft and financial fraud, Paul said other measures could accomplish the same goal. For example, home addresses, credit card data and Social Security numbers could be blacked out, he said.

The ruling arose out of a bitterly fought divorce case between billionaire investor Ronald Burkle and his wife, Janet.

In December, Ronald Burkle’s lawyers -- invoking the new state law -- asked Paul to seal dozens of documents in the divorce file. The Times and Associated Press objected.

Susan Seager, who represented The Times and Associated Press, argued that litigants could use the statute to avoid public scrutiny.

Patricia Glaser, an attorney for Ronald Burkle, said she was disappointed and would probably appeal the ruling.

“Under the present statute, certain things are appropriately sealed. We just think that there should be more,” she said.

An attorney for Janet Burkle said his client was happy with the ruling because she believed her divorce proceedings should remain public.

“This has been a very contentious divorce, and there’s obviously a huge amount at stake,” said attorney Philip Kaufler. “That statute is unconstitutional. This would have affected every divorce case in California.”

The statute was passed by both houses of the state Legislature in April as urgency legislation over opposition by 1st Amendment advocates.

Before it took effect, judges had the power to seal documents and close court hearings, but were required to balance the public’s right to know with the potential harm claimed by an individual. The new law removed judicial discretion when it came to records containing any financial information in divorce cases.

Kaufler said he believed Ron Burkle, who donated a total of $147,800 to Schwarzenegger and the state Democratic Party in February and March of last year, played a role in the passage of the new law.

Burkle has denied any such role.

Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, praised Paul’s ruling and said the statute posed freedom of information issues.

“It’s written in such a way that the entire pleading could be sealed,” Eliasberg said. “It’s inconsistent with the 1st Amendment, the public’s right to know.”

*

Associated Press contributed to this report.