Start with today’s decision Roe v. Los Angeles County (Note that this is different from the Rowe v Warlock), written by Judge John Siegel, joined by Judges Gonzalo Martinez and Gayle Ruderman Fall:
Luo Xingfei filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). In opposing Rowe’s motion for sanctions, the county listed other lawsuits Rowe filed using pseudonyms. Seven months later, Rowe petitioned ex parte for an order striking out the county’s opposition list of lawsuits and asked the trial court for an order denying the sanctions motion. Luo appealed the trial court’s order dismissing her ex parte application. We confirm…
In fact, Rowe largely satisfied her basic requirements for various records of crime statistics, but failed on the redaction point, and the appeals court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on this point. :
First, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s implicit conclusion that there was no overriding interest in favor of redaction overriding the public’s right to access the documents…. Luo believed it was “self-evident” that she had a “right to privacy” in her “personal information.” The issue, however, is not only whether Rowe has a right to privacy but also whether she has an overriding interest that overrides the public’s right to inspect the documents, as required by Rule 2.550(d)(1). There is no evidence in the record that Rowe had an overriding interest.
Second, even if Rowe had an overriding interest in preventing disclosure of her prior litigation, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the interest would not be prejudiced if the records were not sealed. Luo claimed in the court of first instance that the unredacted case name posed a “threat of violence,” but the court held that this claim was pure “speculation.” On appeal, Rowe argued that disclosing “sensitive matters… caused her threats and harassment,” but the only evidence she cited was her redacted statement, the unredacted portion of which did not contain references to threats, violence or harassment. message.
Rowe argued that revealing her real name in this case would make orders in other cases allowing her to use pseudonyms “meaningless and ineffective.” She opined that the trial court “went beyond[ed] Luo did not cite any basis for that claim, but a decision by another court to allow her to proceed under a pseudonym exempted her from the requirements of Rule 2.550 in this case. Absent more information, such a disclosure does not prove that Luo has an overriding interest in preventing the disclosure, that the overriding interest overrides the right of public access, or that disclosure is likely to be detrimental to Luo’s interests.
The documents Rowe sought to redact had been disclosed in court records for seven months before she filed an ex parte redaction petition, undermining her claim that disclosure of other cases would have been damaging to her. Judging from Luo’s delay in seeking relief, the trial court could reasonably infer that public disclosure of the information would not cause her harm. Rowe believed the edits were necessary to “protect[ ] Her privacy rights are moving forward,” but as discussed, she did not provide any facts to show that she would be prejudiced in the future, as required by Rule 2.550(d)(3)…
Erin R. Dunkerly and David C. Moore (Collins & Collins) represent the county.
