Seyeon Kwak v. Charles Jiang

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 SEYEON KWAK,) Case Number: FDV-19-814602) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHARLES JIANG,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: PETITION TO SEAL (CA RULE OF COURT 2.551) 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties are ordered to appear as there is no indication in the record that Petitioner has been 15 served with a copy of the Tentative Ruling Instructions, as required by Local Rule 11.7(D)(3)(a). 16 The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by Zoom video.

If a party chooses to 17 appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in 18 San Francisco Family Court set forth above. At the hearing the Court intends to adopt the 19 following findings and orders: 20 A. Procedural History 21 1) The parties are Petitioner Seyeon Kwak and Respondent Charles Jiang. 22 2) On 1/30/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order and supportive Memorandum of Points and 23 Authorities seeking an order sealing all restraining order records including: (a) the Request for 24 Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) filed 5/1/19; (b) the Temporary Restraining Order 25 (TRO) filed 5/1/29; and (c) the instant Request for Order filed 1/30/26. 26 3) The Court notes the DVRO was dismissed on 6/28/19 for lack of appearance. 27 4) The Proof of service file dated 1/13/26 indicates Petitioner was served with the instant Request 28 for Order (filed 1/30/26) by mail on 1/13/26. 29 5) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration.

1 B. Findings and Order 2 1) The Court finds a party’s request to seal court records can easily conflict with the public’s 3 significant interest in accessing the records of proceedings before their courts. 4 6) The First Amendment provides the public the right of access to ordinary civil trials and 5 proceedings. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212 6 (KNBC-TV).) 7 7) These rights are protected through the Rules of Court and cannot be modified by agreement. 8 “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Rules of 9 Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).)

The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based 10 solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. (Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).) 11 8) The Rules of Court require specific factual findings. “The court may order that a record be filed 12 under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that 13 overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the 14 record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the 15 record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive 16 means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Id. at subd. (d); see also KNBC-TV, supra, at 17 1217-18.) 18 9) These findings must be backed by factual proof. “A party requesting that a record be filed under 19 seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.

The motion or 20 application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient 21 to justify the sealing.” (Id. at rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).) 22 10) According to the rules above, the Court is required to identify facts, which are supported by an 23 evidentiary showing to issue an order sealing records. This includes facts supporting an interest in 24 sealing the records that overrides the public’s interest in accessing them. (See In re Marriage of 25 Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1576.) 26 11) In the instant matter, Respondent justifies the request for sealing based on his leadership role in a 27 large tech company.

Respondent asserts that there is a “constant risk that the public false 28 allegations against him will be accessed and disseminated as he builds his reputation in the 29

1 industry.” Respondent further asserts that as a professional he will be “unjustly harmed by future 2 exposure of the false allegations against him.” 3 12) Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks sufficient evidentiary support to find the proposed sealing 4 meets the required burden as Respondent provides only conclusory statements and concerns about 5 risk of privacy without substantive factual evidence. 6 13) Respondent’s request for an order for sealing is therefore DENIED. 7 14) Counsel for Respondent shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 8 15) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 9 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 10 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 11 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 12 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 13 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 14 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 15

19

23

27

29