BRIAN WILLIAM CORMAN ET AL VS ROGER WILLIAM CORMAN ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681310    Hearing Date: June 22, 2020    Dept: 20

Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20

Hearing Date: Monday, June 22, 2020

Case Name: Corman v. Corman

Case No.: BC681310

Motion: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Defendants Roger and Julie Corman

Responding Party: UNOPPOSED

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Seal is DENIED.Moving party to give notice.

The Court has reviewed the motion. There was no opposition filed. The Court denies the motion for the following reasons:

1. The two settlement agreements do not contain any trade secrets or proprietary information warranting sealing. The Court was not persuaded by the argument related to moving parties being put in any potential tactical disadvantage by reason of the disclosure of these agreements.
2. The two agreements do not contain specific values of assets that persons might wish to remain confidential.
3. No privileged tax records are revealed.
4. Estate of Gallio
5. People v. Jackson
6. In NBC Subsidiary (KNBC -TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4^th 1178,
7. As noted in Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 783-784, “no statute exempts probate files from the status of public records, and that when individuals employ the public powers of state courts to accomplish private ends, such as the establishment and supervision of long-term testamentary trusts, they do so in full knowledge of the possibly disadvantageous circumstance that the documents and records filed in the trust will be open to public inspection. To some extent they can protect against the disadvantage of publicity by arranging for the service of papers on individual beneficiaries through their attorneys or through post-office-box addresses. Alternatively, they can eschew court-regulated devices for transmission of inherited wealth and rely on private arrangements such as Inter vivos gifts, joint tenancies, and so-called ‘living’ or grantor trusts. But when the parties perceive advantages in obtaining continuing court supervision over their affairs, thereby projecting their wishes beyond the span of their individual lives and securing court protection for the beneficiaries of their testamentary plans, in a sense they take the good with the bad, knowing that with public protection comes public knowledge of the activities, assets, and beneficiaries of the trust. What is more, the public has a legitimate interest in access to public records, such as court documents, which establish and perpetuate long-term testamentary trusts. If public court business is conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism. For this reason traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of judicial tribunals. Thus in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 384 U.S. 333, 350, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 530, 34 P. 227, 228.)

Case Number: BC681310    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: 20

The Motion to Seal is DENIED.Moving party to give notice.All parties shall appear by court call if they do not submit on the tentative. The parties should not attend in person.

If all parties do not agree to argue by Court Call, the hearing will need to be continued for 30 days in view of the Governor’s emergency directives related to Coronavirus epidemic and the need for the Court to mitigate health risks to all persons potentially affected.

The Court has reviewed the motion. There was no opposition filed. The Court denies the motion for the following reasons:

1. The two settlement agreements do not contain any trade secrets or proprietary information warranting sealing. The Court was not persuaded by the argument related to moving parties being put in any potential tactical disadvantage by reason of the disclosure of these agreements.
2. The two agreements do not contain specific values of assets that persons might wish to remain confidential.
3. No privileged tax records are revealed.
4. Estate of Gallio
5. People v. Jackson
6. In NBC Subsidiary (KNBC -TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4^th 1178, 1218, the California Supreme Court concluded that most judicial records are subject to a presumption of openness. When the presumption applies, the public has a qualified right of access. That right may be denied only if the court, after notice and hearing, makes four supported findings: “(i) there exists an overriding ... interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability ... that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.” These principles are also codified in California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550. Here, moving parties do not establish how this Court could find this presumption is not applicable or how it could make any of these four findings finding an exception should apply.
7. As noted in Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 783-784, “no statute exempts probate files from the status of public records, and that when individuals employ the public powers of state courts to accomplish private ends, such as the establishment and supervision of long-term testamentary trusts, they do so in full knowledge of the possibly disadvantageous circumstance that the documents and records filed in the trust will be open to public inspection. To some extent they can protect against the disadvantage of publicity by arranging for the service of papers on individual beneficiaries through their attorneys or through post-office-box addresses. Alternatively, they can eschew court-regulated devices for transmission of inherited wealth and rely on private arrangements such as Inter vivos gifts, joint tenancies, and so-called ‘living’ or grantor trusts. But when the parties perceive advantages in obtaining continuing court supervision over their affairs, thereby projecting their wishes beyond the span of their individual lives and securing court protection for the beneficiaries of their testamentary plans, in a sense they take the good with the bad, knowing that with public protection comes public knowledge of the activities, assets, and beneficiaries of the trust. What is more, the public has a legitimate interest in access to public records, such as court documents, which establish and perpetuate long-term testamentary trusts. If public court business is conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism. For this reason traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of judicial tribunals. Thus in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 384 U.S. 333, 350, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, the court said it is a vital function of the press to subject the judicial process to ‘extensive public scrutiny and criticism.’ And the California Supreme Court has said, ‘it is a first principle that the people have the right to know what is done in their courts.’ (In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 530, 34 P. 227, 228.) Absent strong countervailing reasons, the public has a legitimate interest and right of general access to court records, one of special importance when probate involves a large estate with on-going long-term trusts which reputedly administer and control a major publishing empire.” No such strong countervailing reasons have been offered here.