In re the Marriage of STACEY
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>In re the Marriage of STACEY</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >In re the Marriage of STACEY</b><br /> <br/><b >and HENRY T. NICHOLAS</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/29/10<br /> <br/><b ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b ><i > </i></b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FOURTH APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>In re the Marriage of STACEY<br /> <br/>and HENRY T. NICHOLAS.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>STACEY NICHOLAS et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>HENRY T. NICHOLAS,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Appellant;<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> G042365<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Super. Ct.<br /> No. 02D010487)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> O P I N I O<br /> N<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> Appeal from an order of<br /> the Superior Court<br /> of Orange<br /> County, James L. Waltz, Judge. <br /> Affirmed. Request for judicial<br /> notice. Granted in part and denied in<br /> part.<br /> <br/> Rutan & Tucker,<br /> Richard K. Howell, Steven J. Goon and Gerard M. Mooney for Appellant.<br /> <br/> No appearance for<br /> Respondent Stacey Nicholas.<br /> <br/> Davis<br /> Wright Tremaine, Kelli L. Sager, Alonzo Wickers IV and Robyn Aronson for<br /> Respondent Los Angeles Times<br /> Communications LLC.<br /> <br/><b >* * *</b><br /> <br/> Consistent with First Amendment<br /> principles, California has a<br /> long-standing tradition of open civil<br /> proceedings. This applies with equal<br /> force to family law cases, although trial courts may redact or seal particular<br /> documents to protect private information concerning an overriding privacy<br /> interest, including matters pertaining to the custody and visitation of minor<br /> children. (<i >NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV</i>), <i >Inc.<br /> v. Superior Court </i>(1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 (<i>NBC<br /> Subsidiary</i>); <i >In re Marriage of<br /> Burkle </i>(2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045 (<i >Burkle</i>).)<br /> <br/> The trial judge<br /> initially assigned to the family law case now before us issued several<br /> different orders sealing the court record and establishing a procedure blocking<br /> public access. Later, a newly assigned<br /> trial judge issued a revised sealing order to provide a procedure for public<br /> access in compliance with the <i >NBC<br /> Subsidiary </i>and <i >Burkle </i>decisions,<br /> as implemented by California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. <br /> <br/> Appellant<br /> Henry Nicholas (Nicholas) contends the family law court lacked jurisdiction to<br /> issue the revised sealing order because it was bound by the initial family law<br /> judge's ruling, which he deems binding and unalterable by a successor trial<br /> judge. We do not find the contention<br /> persuasive.<br /> <br/> We<br /> reject Nicholas's efforts to transform one of the initial trial judge's prior<br /> sealing orders into a juridical black hole from which no light can ever<br /> escape. Sealing orders, by their nature,<br /> turn on particular circumstances, which may change or evolve over time. Erecting<br /> a jurisdictional barrier would effectively prevent the court from exercising<br /> custody and control over its own files. We<br /> therefore follow well-established constitutional, case, and statutory authority subjecting sealing<br /> orders to continuing review and modification by the trial judge who sits in the<br /> same judicial proceeding.<br /> <br/>I<br /> <br/>Factual and Procedural Background<br /> <br/>A. <i >Prior Sealing Orders</i><br /> <br/> Nicholas<br /> is involved in a â€