Posted on 02/28/2005 9:42:51 PM PST by SmithL
Los Angeles -- A Superior Court judge on Monday struck down as unconstitutional a state law used by billionaire investor Ron Burkle to seal records related to his divorce proceedings.
Judge Roy L. Paul said in the ruling that while the law was intended to boost privacy and confidentiality in some civil filings, it "unduly burdens the competing constitutional right of public access to civil court proceedings and records."
The statute, which went into effect last summer, was challenged in court by the Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press.
"We are glad the court seems to agree that nobody should be permitted to use the court system as if it were a private dispute resolution service," said Dave Tomlin, AP's assistant general counsel.
Burkle cited the law when asking in December that records in his divorce, containing information about his holdings and business dealings, be made confidential.
Patricia Glaser, an attorney for Burkle, said she was disappointed and would likely appeal the ruling.
"Under the present statute, certain things are appropriately sealed. We just think that there should be more," she said.
Burkle, whose estimated personal wealth of $2.3 billion makes him one of the world's richest men, is a well-known political contributor who has given millions of dollars mostly to Democratic candidates and campaigns. He's also given more than $200,000 to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaigns.
The law struck down Monday was backed by then-state Senate Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco. It moved through the Legislature less than a month after a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge agreed to seal some, but not all, of the records Burkle asked be kept secret.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Follow-up to earlier story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345888/posts
Thanks for the ping!
They're all regretting their choice of Mickey-Mouse law firms.
I just finished reading the end of the article. It looks like it ain't over 'til it's over:
Paul, the judge, said in his ruling that the law as enacted could "become an instrument of gamesmanship" by requiring the court to seal large amounts of documents if requested."A 100-page pleading filled with legal argument of genuine public interest must be kept sealed if a party's home address appears even in a footnote" under the statute, the judge said.
Paul's ruling stayed his order unsealing the records for 60 days to give Burkle's attorneys time to either apply for a seal under the previous California law or appeal.
(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")
I'll admit to being a bit confused - Roe v. Wade is now law because we have a constitutional right to privacy, but this law is struck down because we do not have a constitutional right to privacy?
(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")
Now your are thinking like a Liberal! Black is White! War is Peace!
I wonder if Burkle will demand a refund of all the dough he poured in to get this passed... or write it off as a loss on his taxes.
You mean take away Burton's retirement fund? ;-) Probably not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.