J.R. v. Lakeport Unified School District

Background

This settled case involves the sexual assault of two minors, J.R. and O.G. Plaintiffs sought to file an ex parte petition under seal. The petition requested an order allowing the settlement funds to be withdrawn and provided to the plaintiffs, who were then adults eligible to receive them. Plaintiffs’ counsel also sought to withdraw the remaining half of the attorney’s fees from the client trust account.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The stricter “compelling reasons” standard applies to records more than tangentially related to the underlying claims. A less demanding “good cause” standard applies to records unrelated or only tangentially related to those claims. Under the good-cause standard, the party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm if the material is not sealed. Parties must also consider reasonable alternatives, minimize the material sealed, and redact sensitive information rather than seal entire documents whenever possible.

Ruling

Because the petition concerned the distribution of settlement funds, the court held that it was only tangentially related to the underlying claims and applied the good-cause standard. Plaintiffs’ sealing motion stated only that the documents were sealable under an earlier order. That earlier order allowed the plaintiffs to use their first and last initials, allowed their guardians to use first initials and full last names, and sealed two guardian declarations. It did not justify sealing the additional material identified in the new motion. The court therefore denied the motion to seal.

The court ordered plaintiffs to file a revised motion by August 22, 2022, at noon, explaining specifically why each document or portion was sealable. It also required them to file proof that $81,939.62 had been deposited into a blocked account for O.G. and that O.G. could access the account upon reaching the age of majority. The petition had to explain or correct the difference between the stated $64,604.22 settlement amount for O.G. and the requested withdrawal of $64,664.22. Plaintiffs also had to correct places where the petition and declaration used their full names instead of initials.

Finally, the court ruled that the remaining attorney’s fees could not be disbursed at the same time as the plaintiffs’ net settlement awards. After the plaintiffs received their awards, counsel would have to move for an order permitting withdrawal of the remaining fees. The opinion does not state whether plaintiffs later filed the revised motion.