In re the Marriage of STACEY

and HENRY T. NICHOLAS













Filed 7/29/10















CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*



IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

In re the Marriage of STACEY and HENRY T. NICHOLAS.
STACEY NICHOLAS et al., Respondent, v. HENRY T. NICHOLAS, Appellant; LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Respondent.	G042365 (Super. Ct. No. 02D010487) O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of
the Superior Court
of Orange
County, James L. Waltz, Judge.
Affirmed. Request for judicial
notice. Granted in part and denied in
part.

Rutan & Tucker,
Richard K. Howell, Steven J. Goon and Gerard M. Mooney for Appellant.

No appearance for
Respondent Stacey Nicholas.

Davis
Wright Tremaine, Kelli L. Sager, Alonzo Wickers IV and Robyn Aronson for
Respondent Los Angeles Times
Communications LLC.

* * *

Consistent with First Amendment
principles, California has a
long-standing tradition of open civil
proceedings. This applies with equal
force to family law cases, although trial courts may redact or seal particular
documents to protect private information concerning an overriding privacy
interest, including matters pertaining to the custody and visitation of minor
children. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc.
v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 (NBC
Subsidiary); In re Marriage of
Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Burkle).)

The trial judge
initially assigned to the family law case now before us issued several
different orders sealing the court record and establishing a procedure blocking
public access. Later, a newly assigned
trial judge issued a revised sealing order to provide a procedure for public
access in compliance with the NBC
Subsidiary and Burkle decisions,
as implemented by California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

Appellant
Henry Nicholas (Nicholas) contends the family law court lacked jurisdiction to
issue the revised sealing order because it was bound by the initial family law
judge's ruling, which he deems binding and unalterable by a successor trial
judge. We do not find the contention
persuasive.

We
reject Nicholas's efforts to transform one of the initial trial judge's prior
sealing orders into a juridical black hole from which no light can ever
escape. Sealing orders, by their nature,
turn on particular circumstances, which may change or evolve over time. Erecting
a jurisdictional barrier would effectively prevent the court from exercising
custody and control over its own files. We
therefore follow well-established constitutional, case, and statutory authority subjecting sealing
orders to continuing review and modification by the trial judge who sits in the
same judicial proceeding.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

A. Prior Sealing Orders

Nicholas
is involved in a â€