Shu-Hone Yao v. Erwin Mock

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

5) 6 SHU-HONE YAO,) Case Number: FDI-21-795805) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ERWIN MOCK,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER REQUEST TO SEAL PLEADINGS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) Petitioner Shu-Hone (Lisa) Yao (Mother) and Respondent Erwin Mock (Father) have two minor 18 children, Elana (DOB: 10/3/2012, age 13) and Alexander (DOB: 9/10/2015, age 10). 19 2) A Judgment was entered in this matter on 1/31/2024, which incorporated a confidential Marital 20 Settlement Agreement. 21 3) On for hearing is Father’s Request for Order filed 2/23/2026 asking that “all pleadings related to 22 the domestic violence pleadings be sealed from the public record.

Father lists 12 pleadings total 23 that he would like sealed, including pleadings related to the instant motion. Father states that in 24 February 2026, he became aware that trellis.law and unicourt.com have published records 25 involving Mother’s request for a domestic violence restraining order (which Mother later 26 withdrew) and that the websites have refused to remove the pleadings from their site absent a 27 court order. Father states, “These filings, which are available to view by anyone who Googles my 28 name or Ms.

Yao’s name, will have a direct impact on my ability to continue in my professional 29 and volunteer efforts if these remain a part of the public court file... Unless the court orders the

1 records to be sealed, these records... will remain available for public consumption, and cause 2 long-lasting harm to our family in violation of our right to privacy... Ms. Yao has indicated that 3 she supports this request and will join in it. We are not seeking a blanket sealing order to maintain 4 privacy of all respects. We have instead narrowly tailored this request to only the pleadings 5 related to the domestic violence action, custody, and this motion. Absent a sealing order from this 6 Court, I do not believe there are other means in which to protect my privacy rights.” 7 4) On 2/17/2026, Father filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities citing California Rules of 8 Corut, rules 2.550 – 2.551; Section 1, Article 1 of the California Constitution; and NBC 9 Subsidiary v.

Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178. 10 5) On 4/8/2026, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration stating that she is joining Father in his 11 request to seal the identified pleadings. Mother also identifies her own list of pleadings (separate 12 from Father’s list) that she seeks to seal. The Court notes that on 3/30/2026, Mother filed her own 13 Request for Order to seal this additional set of pleadings and the hearing is currently set for 14 6/4/2026. Mother states that the pleadings the parties are seeking to seal “ include sensitive and 15 extremely private information about me, my children, and our family, all of which can be 16 accessed merely by Googling our names.

They include records relating to my Request for 17 Domestic Violence Restraining Order, which I withdrew.... If these records were to remain 18 published, it would cause great personal harm to me, Erwin, and our child and directly impact 19 professional and volunteer endeavors... Judgment in our marital dissolution action was entered 20 years ago. The filing are merely historical documents at this point with no relevance to any on- 21 going litigation. Neither Erwin nor I are public figures. The information contained in these 22 pleadings is damaging to our family if left easily accessible.” 23 6) On 3/30/2026 Mother filed her own Request for Order asking the Court to seal 16 pleadings 24 (these pleadings are not the same pleadings that Father is asking the Court to seal in his 2/23/2026 25 Request for Order).

The hearing on Mother’s Request for Order is currently set for 6/4/2026. 26 B. Findings and Order 27 1) Mother’s request to seal her list of 16 identified pleadings is denied without prejudice. The Court 28 will hear Mother’s request related to these pleadings at the upcoming 6/4/2026 hearing. 29

1 2) Under California Rule of Court, rule 2.550(d), “The court may order that a record be filed under 2 seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that 3 overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the 4 record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the 5 record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive 6 means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” 7 3) The Court finds that the parties have not identified an overriding interest that overcomes the right 8 of public access to the record, nor does the Court find that the parties have shown that a 9 substantial probability exists that any purported overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record 10 is not sealed.

The Court denies Father’s request to seal records related to the Request for 11 Domestic Violence Restraining Order. 12 4) Father’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 13 5) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 14 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 15 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 16 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 17 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 18 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 19 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 20

24

28

29