Marriage of Tamir

Citation: Not availableDocket: A161782

Court: California Court of Appeal; December 19, 2021; California; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In divorce proceedings involving Celine and Yoram Tamir, Isaac Soncino and the Tamirs exchanged financial documents under two stipulated protective orders. The California Attorney General moved to unseal these records, arguing their relevance to an investigation into alleged misuse of funds by a charity linked to Soncino and the Tamirs. The trial court granted this motion. On appeal, Soncino, Celine, and their businesses contended that the trial court lacked authority to unseal the documents, that the Attorney General did not have a recognized right to access them, and that the court abused its discretion in lifting the protective orders. The Attorney General countered that public interest in enforcement outweighed privacy concerns. The appellate court upheld the trial court's authority to rule on the motion and affirmed that the Attorney General could seek the records, noting that appellants did not demonstrate a privacy interest that surpassed the public's right to access. However, it found that the trial court did not assess whether the documents were integral to the trial and therefore erred in setting aside the protective orders. The court reversed the unsealing order and remanded the case for the trial court to evaluate the documents' relevance to the adjudication. Additionally, the appellants' request for judicial notice regarding a directory of judges was denied due to procedural noncompliance. Background information includes the establishment of two for-profit organizations by Soncino and the Tamirs, along with a nonprofit aimed at expanding their business, and the ongoing litigation involving claims of property misappropriation during the divorce proceedings.

Celine was prohibited from sharing specific information and documents obtained from Yoram's desk and their marital residence without his consent due to a protective order. During litigation, two sealing orders were issued by Presiding Judge Joseph C. Scott concerning records of the parties' compensation, salary, expenses, and unspecified personal information. The family court bifurcated the trial to address ownership interests in the family businesses, where Soncino and Celine claimed the businesses were a partnership with Yoram, while Yoram contended they were community property in corporate form. The court ruled in favor of Soncino and Celine, acknowledging Soncino as a one-third partner and finding misappropriation of business funds for personal expenses. A civil judgment was entered in 2012, with the dissolution finalized in 2014. In 2019, the Attorney General filed a complaint against the family businesses and the Tamirs for various financial misconduct, including involuntary dissolution and breach of fiduciary duty. The Attorney General sought to unseal court records from the prior marriage case, alleging commingling of charitable funds for personal use. Soncino, Celine, and the family businesses opposed this motion, arguing the Attorney General lacked entitlement to Celine’s financial records and that the motion was defective for not including the original sealing orders. The trial court denied the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction to unseal without the original judge's involvement and noting the Attorney General had not presented all relevant records. In 2020, the Attorney General filed another motion to unseal within the same marital case, reiterating previous arguments, but Soncino, Celine, and the family businesses again opposed it, emphasizing the request pertained to private financial information unrelated to the case at hand.

The appellants claimed that their financial privacy rights were greater than the Attorney General's right to access certain records. They raised procedural objections to the Attorney General's motion, which was assigned to Judge Sean P. Dabel. The family court ruled in favor of the Attorney General, ordering the unsealing of records from the case Marriage of Tamir and Soncino v. Tamir, and lifting protective orders from December 2011 and September 2012. The court determined it had the jurisdiction to address the unsealing request, found the Attorney General's justification sufficient to nullify the sealing orders, and endorsed the Attorney General’s arguments. The appellants subsequently filed a timely appeal.

California courts recognize both a common law and a constitutional right under the First Amendment for public access to court records. There is a strong presumption favoring public access in civil trials, as the public has an interest in assessing judicial performance. Sealing orders conflict with this right and are subject to scrutiny. 

California Rules of Court, specifically rules 2.550 and 2.551, outline the process for sealing and unsealing records. Rule 2.550 presumes court records are open unless confidentiality is legally mandated, and it sets criteria for sealing records, including the need for an overriding interest and a substantial probability of prejudice if not sealed. Additionally, the sealing order must explicitly state the supporting facts. Rule 2.551 allows any party or the court to move to unseal records, requiring consideration of similar criteria without the need for express factual findings. Appeals regarding sealing orders are typically reviewed for abuse of discretion, although there is a division among courts regarding the review standard for challenges based on the First Amendment.

The court examined the standard of review for both sealing and unsealing records, emphasizing that sealing records requires the trial court to make specific factual findings as outlined in rule 2.550(d)(1)–(5). The initial review involves assessing whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Given that the rule allows for discretion, the appellate court must determine if the trial court abused its discretion in sealing the records. In contrast, for unsealing records, the court does not need to make express findings but instead looks for substantial evidence supporting implied findings that the sealing requirements were not met. 

Despite the different approaches taken in past cases, such as Providian and Jackson, the current matter focuses on the challenge to an order unsealing records, with the court agreeing with Providian’s review standard. The appellants claimed that Judge Dabel lacked the authority to unseal records previously sealed by Judge Scott, arguing that Judge Dabel’s order overruled Judge Davis’s previous denial of the Attorney General’s unsealing motion. The court clarified that Judge Dabel did not overrule Judge Davis, as Judge Davis did not assess the merits of the unsealing motion but stated that jurisdiction for such motions lies with the judge who issued the original sealing orders. 

The court further explained that while a trial judge typically cannot overturn another judge’s order, exceptions exist—such as when the original judge is unavailable or if new evidence arises. The appellants cited Wilson v. Science Applications Internat. Corp. and Church of Scientology v. Armstrong to support their position on unsealing motions, but the court noted that these cases were decided before the enactment of the sealed records rules. The court referenced a recent case, Nicholas, where the family court had issued multiple sealing orders during a public divorce, ultimately involving a new judge to handle the files.

A new judge issued sealing orders that unsealed certain documents and vacated a previous sealing order. The husband appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sealing order. The appellate court rejected this argument, emphasizing the constitutional principles and judicial rules that favor public access to court records, which can only be sealed under limited circumstances explicitly supported by factual justification. The court asserted that sealing orders, due to their impact on public access rights, are subject to ongoing review and can be modified as circumstances change, likening them to a temporary measure rather than a permanent decision.

The court further dismissed the husband's jurisdictional claims, noting that rule 2.551(h) empowers trial judges to unseal records previously sealed by prior orders, thereby reinforcing the public’s right to know. It clarified that successor judges retain the authority to amend or revise orders from their predecessors within the same case, countering the husband's argument against this authority. The court emphasized that restricting a judge's ability to manage their case files would undermine the judiciary's fundamental role in resolving disputes and administering justice. The court concluded that the family court had the authority to rule on the Attorney General’s motion to unseal.

Appellants challenge the family court's order to unseal records, arguing that the Attorney General did not pursue the motion to uphold the First Amendment right to public access, that his stated purpose for seeking the records is insufficient, that the factors under rule 2.550 favor keeping the records sealed, and that the records in question are not governed by the sealed records rules. 

The court begins by addressing the Attorney General’s justification for requesting the unsealing, stating that his public interest claim regarding the regulation of public charities is valid under the sealed records rules, contrary to the appellants’ assertion that public access must relate specifically to monitoring judicial processes. 

It is established that there exists a common law right to access public documents, including court records, which is underpinned by a presumption of openness unless exempted by statute or court-imposed confidentiality. The California Supreme Court's decision in NBC Subsidiary affirmed a First Amendment right to access civil litigation documents, emphasizing that public access is crucial for ensuring fairness, enabling scrutiny of judicial power, and enhancing truth-finding. 

Subsequent appellate courts have adopted a constitutional approach to disputes over public access, leading to the establishment of rules 2.550 and 2.551, which create a presumption of public access to certain court documents. These rules do not apply to discovery motions and related records but do include discovery materials submitted as part of trial adjudications. The court clarified that the term "submitted" in these rules encompasses all relevant discovery materials presented in support of or opposition to motions, not just those relied upon by the court in its rulings.

A broader interpretation of the phrase "submitted as a basis for adjudication" is deemed appropriate, as the Appellants' argument for public access fails to recognize the presumption of public access established by such submissions. Case law and sealed records rules do not necessitate identification of additional public interest. The sealed records rules apply to discovery materials used at trial, restricting access only to relevant issues under rule 2.550. The right to access is affirmed in the California Constitution, which guarantees public access to information regarding governmental operations. The Attorney General can thus move to unseal materials used at trial based on these rules.

Rule 2.550(d) outlines five considerations for sealing or unsealing records: explicit findings are required for sealing, but not for unsealing. The Appellants claim a strong privacy interest in their financial and personal information, while the Attorney General argues that compensation for charity directors lacks constitutional protection. The determination of whether privacy interests outweigh the constitutional right of access is a balancing process, influenced by case specifics. 

In re Marriage of Burkle serves as a precedent, where the court concluded that divorce proceedings are generally open and emphasized that state privacy rights do not automatically supersede First Amendment access rights. The court invalidated a statute that allowed sealing financial information in divorce cases, ruling it overly broad. The Appellants argue that their privacy concerns regarding the unsealing of documents related to employment and compensation should prevail, yet they fail to provide specific prejudices or privacy concerns that would justify overriding public access rights, merely asserting that unsealing represents government overreach as intended to be prevented by California's privacy clause.

Appellants contend their personal information is unrelated to the Attorney General’s oversight of public charities. However, the Attorney General's authority extends to various entities involved in charitable activities, including unincorporated associations and trustees. The appellants reference Cassidy v. California Bd. of Accountancy (2013) to support their claim for privacy over financial information, but the court in Cassidy emphasized that the documents in question were not subject to adjudication and were publicly recorded without consent, thus lacking a public access right. The current case does not share these circumstances.

Additionally, reliance on Burkle is deemed irrelevant, as it acknowledged privacy rights but upheld the First Amendment right to access public records, suggesting that the appellants' position could lead to excessive sealing of court financial records, conflicting with First Amendment principles. The assertion that financial information is unrelated to the Attorney General’s role is misleading, given the appellants’ acceptance of funds from Newton Center and their positions as directors, which grants the Attorney General the authority to access their financial records.

The appellants also argue that the family court mistakenly unsealed records from their divorce proceedings, claiming these documents were neither used at trial nor related to adjudication. The Attorney General counters that the sealed records were not clearly identified. The appellants maintain that the sealed documents pertained to motions regarding ancillary issues and did not relate to the main case adjudication or trial. While the Attorney General highlights the absence of clarity in identifying the sealed documents, it fails to specify any sealing order directly linked to the case's substantive adjudication. However, at least two documents referenced by the Attorney General appear relevant to the case's adjudication regarding tax consequences and community interest in the family business.

The court found that the record did not clarify the issues related to the motions to seal or the relevant documents, leading to the reversal of the family court’s order permitting the Attorney General to unseal certain documents. The case is remanded to the family court to determine whether the sealed documents were utilized in trial or submitted for adjudication outside of discovery motions. Appellants argued that the family court incorrectly terminated protective orders from 2011 and 2012, asserting that the documents were confidential discovery materials not used in trial. The Attorney General failed to contest this argument, and the court noted that the Attorney General's motion to unseal was based on sealed records rules, which do not apply to protective orders. The family court's decision to set aside these protective orders was deemed erroneous, as the exchange of documents under a protective order does not constitute their use in trial or adjudication of matters beyond discovery. The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs on appeal. The opinion was subsequently certified for publication, confirming no change in judgment.