Backdoor Bill Would Seal Data on Divorce

Burkle appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court on Wednesday. But meanwhile, state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City) has come to his aid. On the heels of the appellate ruling, Murray quietly implemented what is known as a "gut-and-amend" job on the homeland security measure, which had been gathering dust on a committee shelf. He struck out the old language and replaced it with a fresh version of the overturned law, much as one might scoop out a cantaloupe and fill it with crab dip.

The new bill would require judges to shroud only the financial details at issue, not the entire document. But because it still would prohibit them from making the customary balance test between privacy and openness at their own discretion and line by line, Janet Burkle and the newspapers still object.

The bill, which is currently in committee, also would allow privately paid judges to seal documents. This is \o7very\f7 intriguing. It just happens that one of the issues in Burkle's case is precisely whether such judges -- a corps mostly made up of retired Superior Court judges paid by rich litigants to conduct quasi-private trials -- can seal public records. (The Burkles' handpicked judge regretfully concluded that he didn't have that authority.)

Murray and a spokesman for Burkle say the latter had absolutely nothing to do with the former's bill. (There's no public record, such as campaign contributions from Burkle to Murray, linking them.) The bill's actual author, a Los Angeles divorce attorney named Fred Silberberg, told me he never heard Burkle's name until the appeals court ruling came down.

Silberberg and Murray both claim to be motivated by genuine concern for families whose personal financial affairs get aired unnecessarily in the process of breaking up. Yet, everybody knows that exposing dark corners of your life to public view is the price of using the public's civil judicial system to settle your private grievances. Neither Silberberg nor Murray can adequately explain why divorce litigants deserve special rights.

Silberberg cites the kidnap threat, but that's a dodge. No sleazeball with child abduction in his heart needs to read a court filing to know that Ron Burkle is a billionaire; he can learn it from Forbes. And Silberberg's measure applies to all divorce cases, not only those involving children. In any event, Family Court judges have the right to redact identifying information like home addresses and Social Security numbers from court papers; indeed, after the Court of Appeal ruling, Burkle asked Superior Court Judge Marjorie S. Steinberg to use her preexisting authority to do exactly that.