Legal Question in Appeals and Writs in California

Court decisions are public records and thus can be published by anyone without having to pay a fee or gain permission. Should a person convicted of a crime have the right to prevent any information about him or the charges, etc., to be made public to a broader audience? I am sorry the results are harmful to you and the othes, but is is a necessity of a democratic society that judical proceedings be fully public.That the court of appeal will not grant the case to be published does not change the fact that it is public; that refusal merely means the case can not be cited in other cases, but it still can be of interest by attorneys trying to figure out what a judge might do in a similar case.

I had a client who had a juvenile court case that was appealed, and the unpublished opinion defamed him. The appellate opinion, quite falsely, stated that the client had been convicted of a notorious crime. The appellate court corrected the error on rehearing by deleting the defamatory material, but it did not issue a retraction. The offending opinion remained on courtinfo.ca.gov, and on Lexis and Westlaw. We were able to get the opinion taken down from Lexis and Westlaw only by threatening legal action.

If in fact this website is publishing your confidential case, such as a juvenile court case protected by WIC 827, you could have recourse against the publisher. You could also have recourse if the publisher is printing an unpublished Court of Appeal opinion that defames you. I would need more information.

I have been practicing appellate law for 24 years, and I do not know what you mean by stating that your case was "not supposed to be publicized." With some limited exceptions, all appellate proceedings are presumptively public record. One exception is a juvenile case or other sensitive matter where the names of the parties are only partially identified (i.e., by their initials). In other cases, some documents can be filed "under seal" and thus are not part of the public record, but that requires a specific court order. Thus it is not clear from your post is the basis of the confidentiality you are claiming. If you mean only that the Court of Appeal's decision is unpublished, that does not provide you protection; it still is a public record.

Further, and this may be obvious, but in order to take action against the publisher, you need to identify the person or entity who is posting the information. Have you been able to do so?

Next, and also important, is that if you do have a claim against the publisher, you can anticipate that it will raise Constitutional defenses and will respond to a lawsuit with a procedural device call a Special Motion to Strike (Civ. Pro. section 425.16). This could expose you to an attorney fee award if the defendant prevails.

That all being said, should consider consulting with an attorney with experience in appellate law, internet law and/or constitutional law.

When a Court of Appeal says that a decision is "not for publication", it means only that the decision will not be published in the official series of books that contain significant decisions. It does not mean that the case will be kept confidential. We have open courts in this country, so appellate decisions (except in juvenile criminal cases) are matters of public record. That's true even where the case isn't officially published -- which most aren't.

I agree with Mr. Hoffman. The only appellate court opinions, whether published or unpublished, that the public is not supposed to have access to are appeals involving paternity actions.