B337874
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 18, 2025Background
- Lawrence Marino sought and obtained an 18-month civil harassment restraining order against Mark Alon Rayant in Marino's absence; Rayant contended he never received notice of the hearing.
- The court later terminated the restraining order against Rayant after finding insufficient evidence and improper notice.
- Rayant then moved to seal the entire court record related to the restraining order, arguing it harmed his employment prospects and subjected him to increased airport security.
- The trial court denied Rayant's motion to seal, finding he did not meet the requirements under California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551 for sealing court records.
- On appeal, Rayant argued that the sealing rules, which are grounded in federal constitutional principles, should not apply to restraining order proceedings, and that his privacy and reputational interests outweighed public access.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding the rules apply and Rayant failed to show a substantial probability of prejudice or meet the narrow tailoring required for sealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of public access rules to restraining order records | Rayant: Rules do not apply to restraining order proceedings. | Marino: No brief filed (stipulated to sealing in lower court). | Rules apply; presumption of openness unaffected by proceeding type. |
| Sealing justified by privacy/reputation harm | Rayant: Harm to job prospects and travel justifies sealing. | Marino: After settlement, supported either sealing or no action. | No substantial probability of harm shown; interest not overriding. |
| Timeliness and breadth of sealing motion | Rayant: Sealing needed now due to harm, motion is ripe. | -- | Motion was untimely and not narrowly tailored. |
| Exception for non-adjudicative documents | Rayant: Documents were not used to adjudicate legal issues. | -- | Exception applies only to discovery materials, not pleadings/orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1999) (establishes First Amendment right of access to civil court proceedings and sets sealing standard)
- Sorenson v. Superior Court, 219 Cal.App.4th 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (exception to public access for special statutory proceedings, not applicable to ordinary civil matters)
- Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (interprets public access exception for discovery materials in complaints)
- In re Marriage of Burkle, 135 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (public access requirements may override statutory sealing in family law)
- San Bernardino County Dept. of Public Social Services v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.App.3d 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (history/utility test applies to statutory limits on public access)