Sorenson v. Superior Court
219 Cal. App. 4th 409
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Monterey County sought involuntary conservatorships for Christopher Sorenson under the Lanterman‑Petris‑Short (LPS) Act; two jury trials were held in 2011 and Sorenson was not conserved.
- Eight days after the second LPS trial, Sorenson was charged with murdering his mother; the District Attorney informally requested copies of the two LPS trial transcripts to aid the criminal prosecution.
- Two local newspapers requested access to the LPS court files and transcripts; the presiding judge initially denied informal requests citing confidentiality under the LPS Act.
- A later formal motion by the People and a motion by The Monterey County Herald prompted reassignment to Judge Hood, who ordered release of the reporter’s transcripts to the People and media, finding the parties had effectively “requested” public hearings under Welf. & Inst. Code § 5118.
- Sorenson petitioned for writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal stayed release and reviewed whether LPS conservatorship trials are presumptively public under the First Amendment or statutory law and whether § 5118 makes them presumptively nonpublic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sorenson) | Defendant's Argument (People/Media) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LPS jury trials are "ordinary civil proceedings" entitled to qualified First Amendment public‑access protection | LPS proceedings are special and designed to protect patient privacy; not "ordinary" civil trials | NBC Subsidiary extends access to civil trials generally; Code Civ. Proc. § 124 presumes public sittings | Held: LPS jury trials are special proceedings, not "ordinary" civil proceedings; no qualified First Amendment right of access applies |
| Whether historical tradition and utility support a constitutional right of access to LPS trials | Confidentiality provisions and legislative scheme show no tradition of openness; utility is limited and harms privacy | Public access serves education and checking judicial power; § 124 presumes openness absent clear exceptions | Held: Historical and utility factors do not support a First Amendment right of access to LPS trials |
| Whether Welf. & Inst. Code § 5118 creates a statutory exception to Code Civ. Proc. § 124 (i.e., makes LPS hearings presumptively nonpublic) | § 5118’s "any party may demand the hearing be public" implies hearings are presumptively nonpublic, including trials; harmonizes with § 5328 and psychotherapist‑patient privilege | § 5118 does not mention jury trials; absence of explicit language means trials remain public under § 124 | Held: § 5118, read in context with the LPS Act (esp. § 5328 and privacy protections), makes LPS hearings—including trials—presumptively nonpublic, providing a statutory exception to § 124 |
| Whether the trial court correctly found the parties were "deemed" to have requested public hearings (waiving confidentiality and privilege) | No express demand was made; silence/passive conduct cannot constitute an affirmative demand or knowing waiver of confidentiality or the psychotherapist‑patient privilege | The courtroom was open, public attended, and no objections were noted; conduct indicated hearings were treated as public | Held: The court erred. The admissible evidence did not support finding an affirmative demand; parties were not "deemed" to have requested public trials, so transcripts must remain protected under § 5118 absent other legal basis |
Key Cases Cited
- NBC Subsidiary (KNBC‑TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1178 (California Supreme Court) (recognized a qualified First Amendment right of access to ordinary civil trials and set closure/sealing standards)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. Supreme Court) (established public‑trial presumption in criminal cases and First Amendment access rationale)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press‑Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. Supreme Court) (historic tradition and utility test; closure only for overriding interest narrowly tailored)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press‑Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court) (applied access analysis to preliminary hearings; utility/history factors)
- Conservatorship of Roulet, 23 Cal.3d 219 (California Supreme Court) (discussed grave‑disability conservatorship stakes and required protections)
- Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (California Supreme Court) (noting liberty interests and safeguards in involuntary civil commitment)