March 30, 2006

Ask The Lawyer

Court editing or sealing of divorce records up in the air

This week’s question:
I would like to know that if I file for divorce can the court order the record sealed so that others cannot snoop into our family finances? It’s really none of their business, it may result in identity theft, and I resent everyone and their brother knowing about private financial holdings, debts, compensation, stocks, stock options, brokerage accounts and the like.

Brett B.
Almaden Valley

Dear Brett:
You have sent in a very timely question, Brett. Actually, this topic is being considered by the courts and by the California State Legislature as this column is being prepared.

By way of background, in all marital dissolution cases, the parties are required to list on court forms all of their income and expense information. This information can tend to be somewhat exhaustive and detailed if done right. Also, they are required to prepare a “Schedule of Assets and Debts” that also calls for the revealing in writing of complete and thorough financial information—under penalty of perjury. Copies are then given to the other side.

Most civil court files are open to public inspection, including family law cases. Even though parties to the lawsuit may want to keep their finances private, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. Thus, you can see how privacy rights and the right to a free press may clash. It is a serious issue, to say the least.

Against this background, Janet Burkle filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court for dissolution of her marriage with Ronald Burkle. The Burkles and their son were persons with substantial assets and “high public interest” by the press, some have said “high society.” Mr. Burkle moved the trial court to “redact” (i.e., edit out or cover up) certain portions of financial court documents. (Ron Burkle is reputed to be a “billionaire supermarket magnate”.)

The trial court then ordered certain financial documents “redacted” as to residence addresses and bank account names and numbers, but did not redact a post-marital agreement in its entirety.

Some months later, the state legislature amended the Family Code so as to allow a divorcing party to seal court documents containing information concerning financial assets of the parties. This of course met with Mr. Burkle’s approval, so he then sought a court order to seal certain of their divorce records under the then-new Family Code provision.

However, after the Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press intervened, the trial court found that Family Code §2024.6 was unconstitutional since it was “overbroad” and the sealing of records violated the constitutional First Amendment right of access to court records in divorce proceedings.

You can read the Jan. 20, 2006, Burkle v. Burkle case for yourself by logging onto the following link from the Second District Court of Appeal: http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/b181878.html

But, hold on, since that’s not the end of the story.

Someone, not wanting to wait until the California Supreme Court ruled on the Burkle case, very recently had new legislation introduced in Sacramento to deal with the issue. Senate Bill 1015, introduced by Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles, would force a judge, upon the request of either party in a divorce case, to “redact” (i.e., edit out) all financial information from a court pleading document.

If passed, this new legislation would mean that the public would no longer be able to see financial information in contested divorce cases, including assets, income, expenses, and debts. So, one can see the battle continuing between First Amendment rights and those who believe that SB 1015 provides common-sense protection for divorcing couples. In reality, it could be Burkle v. the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

If you wish, you can log onto the California State Senate Web site and track the legislative process of SB 1015. Log onto: http://www.sen.ca.gov/. Then select “Legislation” and you can track SB 1015 each day. It may be interesting, and, of course, it may be history by the time this column appears in the Almaden Times Weekly. It may also be interesting to see how the California Supreme Court may rule on this important issue. In other words, stay tuned for further developments.

Finally, an unrelated note is needed concerning my last Almaden Times column. I wrote an article that appeared in the Almaden Times Weekly issue dated March 24-30. It was entitled “Interesting New Laws for 2006” and referred in part to warning labels for violent video games. If applicable, the age warning would be shown in a 2-inch by 2-inch box with the figure 18 inside the box, indicating 18 years of age. Unfortunately, the newspaper printer software read the quotation marks as inches and spelled out “18 inch” on two occasions. Sorry about that.

Donald J. DeVries
Almaden Valley


Donald J. DeVries is an attorney practicing law in Almaden Valley. If you would like him to answer your question in his next Almaden Times column, you can reach him by e-mail at don@almadenvalleylawyers.com, fax at (408) 268-6502, telephone at (408) 268-9500, or mail at, 6475 Camden Avenue, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95120. Your matters are personal and private, so of course, he will not disclose your identity or any details about your situation. To view Almaden Times columns since 1986 visit www.almadenvalleylawyers.com. DeVries writes this column to provide you with general information about important legal matters affecting California residents—not to give you legal advice about your specific matter. No attorney-client relationship is created by these articles. The law is complex and constantly changing and varies from state to state. So you should consult an attorney before taking any action that would affect your personal or business matters.