BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1015
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
SB 1015 (Murray) - As Amended: April 25, 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-assets, liabilities, income, or
expenses, or the location or identifying information about the
assets, liabilities, income, or expenses-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.
SB 1015
Page 2
4)Requires the court upon the request of a party, to order
redacted all of the following with regard to the party in a
proceeding:
a) Social security number.
b) Address of a residence, unless that address is provided
as the party's address for service of process.
c) Name on, and account number and balance of, a bank
account, brokerage account, or an account at any other
financial institution.
d) Annual salary or net income.
e) Net worth.
5)Makes the information redacted available to the Judicial
Council only for the purpose of conducting statistical
analyses.
6)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2007, to adopt rules
setting forth the procedures for redacting and restoring
pleadings pursuant to the above.
7)Allows the courts to charge a few to recover their actual
costs associated with redaction and file maintenance related
to (4), above.
8)Requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of gender
fairness in the family courts, including an analysis of the
information redacted pursuant to this bill. The results of the
study are to be reported to the Legislature 18 months after
the Judicial Council receives an appropriation for the study,
and every 10 years thereafter.
FISCAL EFFECT
In 2004, about 150,000 petitions for marital dissolution were
filed with the courts statewide.
1)The number of noticed 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
SB 1015
Page 3
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.
2)The Judicial Council expects that many more parties will
request redaction by the courts of specified financial
information that does not require a noticed motion. The most
recent amendments authorize the courts to charge a fee to
recover the actual costs of this function.
3)Costs for the gender fairness study will be in the range of
$250,000 every 10 years.
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.
Amendments adopted by the Assembly Judiciary Committee attempt
to address concerns that the proposed statutory changes
possessed similar constitutional flaws identified in the
recent appellate decision. (The Judiciary Committee's analysis
includes a thorough discussion of the legislative history and
the relevant constitutional issues.) These amendments attempt
SB 1015
Page 4
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.
Subsequent amendments (a) require the courts to redact a
party's specific personal and financial information upon
request of the party; (b) authorize the courts to collect a
fee to recover their costs to perform this function; and (c)
require the Judicial Council to do a report on gender fairness
in the family courts, which is to include a statistical
analysis of the information redacted pursuant to this bill.
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, argue against
restricting access to court records and believes this bill
would also be found unconstitutional.
The Judicial Council believes the bill would "have a negative
effect on public trust and confidence in the courts." 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 1015
Page 5