As used in this chapter:
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.)
Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.
The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
Cal. R. Ct. 2.550
Advisory Committee Comment
This rule and rule 2.551 provide a standard and procedures for courts to use when a request is made to seal a record. The standard is based on NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178. These rules apply to civil and criminal cases. They recognize the First Amendment right of access to documents used at trial or as a basis of adjudication. The rules do not apply to records that courts must keep confidential by law. Examples of confidential records to which public access is restricted by law are records of the family conciliation court (Family Code, Section 1818(b)), in forma pauperis applications (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.54 and 8.26), and search warrant affidavits sealed under People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948. The sealed records rules also do not apply to discovery proceedings, motions, and materials that are not used at trial or submitted to the court as a basis for adjudication. (See NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1208-1209, fn. 25.)
Rule 2.550(d)-(e) is derived from NBC Subsidiary. That decision contains the requirements that the court, before closing a hearing or sealing a transcript, must find an "overriding interest" that supports the closure or sealing, and must make certain express findings. (Id. at pp. 1217,1218.) The decision notes that the First Amendment right of access applies to records filed in both civil and criminal cases as a basis for adjudication. (Id. at pp. 1208,1209, fn. 25.) Thus, the NBC Subsidiary test applies to the sealing of records.
NBC Subsidiary provides examples of various interests that courts have acknowledged may constitute "overriding interests." (See id. at p. 1222, fn. 46.) Courts have found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute "overriding interests." The rules do not attempt to define what may constitute an "overriding interest," but leave this to case law.
.