BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1015
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
SB 1015 (Murray) - As Amended: April 17, 2006
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-0
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the existing statute designed to shield
financial information in marital dissolution cases, in order to
address a finding of unconstitutionality made by the appellate
court in a recent decision. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that, upon request, through a noticed motion by
either party in a divorce proceeding, the court shall order
redacted that portion of a filed pleading containing specified
financial information about the parties, if the court finds
all of the following:
a) An overriding interest that overcomes the public's right
of access to public records.
b) The overriding interest supports redaction.
c) A substantial probability that the overriding interest
will be prejudiced without redaction.
d) The proposed redaction is narrowly tailored.
e) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the
overriding interest.
2)Requires the court, in making the above determination, to
balance the public interest for access to judicial proceedings
with the privacy rights of spouses, children, and other
interested parties.
3)Provides that any pleading redacted pursuant to this measure
may not be restored except upon petition to the court and a
showing of good cause.
4)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2007, to adopt rules
setting forth the procedures for redacting and restoring
SB 1015
Page 2
pleadings pursuant to the above.
FISCAL EFFECT
In 2004, about 150,000 petitions for marital dissolution were
filed with the courts statewide. The number of motions that
would be made seeking redaction of financial information is
unknown, but would probably involve, at most, a very small
percentage of total petitions. This would result in additional
court workload that more likely could marginally delay other
court proceedings rather than directly increase overall court
costs.
The courts would likely receive additional revenue associated
with this new workload. The new Rule of Court to be adopted by
the Judicial Council will likely include a provision allowing
for a fee to be charged to the parties in cases where a
substantial amount of material being submitted for redaction
requires the appointment of a court referee. A similar fee is
currently authorized under Court Rule 243.1, involving the
sealing of court records.
COMMENTS
1)Background and Purpose . In 2004, the Legislature, without
dissent, passed AB 782/Chapter 45 (Kehoe)-an urgency measure
establishing a new mechanism for divorcing or separating
parties that required family courts to seal entire pleadings
that contained any of their financial information. The stated
purpose of that bill was to protect divorcing couples from
being forced to expose their private financial information to
public view solely because they were getting divorced. On
January 20, 2006, however, the Second District Court of
Appeals, based in Los Angeles, held that the key provision of
AB 782-Family Code Section 2024.6, was an unconstitutional
violation of the First Amendment's right of public access to
court proceedings.
SB 1015 seeks to address the court's declared constitutional
infirmities in Family Code Section 2024.6 by, among other
things, modifying Family Code Section 2024.6 to require
targeted redaction of financial information rather than the
broad sealing of entire court documents.
The most recent amendments, as adopted by the Assembly
SB 1015
Page 3
Judiciary Committee, attempt to address concerns that the
proposed statutory changes possessed similar constitutional
flaws identified in the recent appellate decision. (The
committee's analysis includes a thorough discussion of the
legislative history and the relevant constitutional issues.)
These amendments attempt to provide the court with discretion
to weigh the parties' interest in having their personal
financial information redacted with the public's interest in
open access to court records. The five conditions that would
have to be satisfied for the court to order redaction mirror
conditions previously adopted by the Judicial Council under
the California Rule of Court 243.1 for the sealing of court
records.
2)Author's Arguments in Support : The author believes that,
while open records principles should generally govern judicial
records and court proceedings, a carefully-tailored exception
is warranted for records and information in divorce cases that
arguably affect only the parties to the dissolution or legal
separation. The author cites numerous anecdotes not only of
stolen identities but also of intrusive and allegedly unjust
media publicity about divorcing couples with substantial
assets. In most cases, the author states, the public clearly
has no need to know what assets a divorcing couple has
accumulated, where those assets are located, and how those
assets are to be divided.
3)Opposition includes the California Newspaper Publishers
Association and Californians Aware, a non-profit organization
dedicated to protecting public access, which argue that the
bill, as heard by the Judiciary Committee, would also be found
unconstitutional. (It is unclear to what extent the most
recent amendments address this concern.)
The Judicial Council, with regard to the previous version of
the bill, believes it would "have a negative effect on public
trust and confidence in the courts, and would impose a
significant new workload on judicial officers in family court
assignments." In part, the Council is concerned that "? any
attempt to redact from the public file information that was
crucial to the outcome of a case will create the appearance
that the court itself may have something to hide from the
public. Such an appearance undermines the public's faith that
the court is making unbiased and appropriate decisions in each
case."
SB 1015
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081