Opinion
B329695
08-07-2024
MEDIA COALITION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant and Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
Susan E. Seager, Jack Lerner; First Amendment Coalition and David Loy for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi and Jin S. Choi for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NW20500854 Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge. Dismissed.
Susan E. Seager, Jack Lerner; First Amendment Coalition and David Loy for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi and Jin S. Choi for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
CHAVEZ, J.
Appellant Media Coalition appeals from an order partially unsealing search warrant records. After the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court granted the motion to unseal the search warrant records filed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Sheriff's Department). We conclude the subsequent order unsealing the search warrant records has rendered the appeal moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Media Coalition consists of two organizations: Knock LA and First Amendment Coalition. The trial court found they have standing to seek the records as members of the public. (See generally NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217, fn. 36 [recognizing that representatives of the press and general public have standing to challenge orders closing court proceedings and sealing court records].)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2020, initially peaceful protests regarding police conduct were held on Imperial Highway in Los Angeles. Eventually the protests turned violent, and rocks and water bottles were thrown at law enforcement officers. The protest on September 8, 2020, was declared an unlawful assembly after the protestors were observed blocking traffic and creating a hostile and unsafe environment for the public. Seventeen individuals were arrested.
The following day, the Sheriff's Department obtained a warrant to search the arrestees' cell phones. The search warrant records were sealed.
Nearly two years later appellant filed a motion to unseal the search warrant records. The trial court held hearings on October 17, 2022, and December 12, 2022. Because the records were sealed, the trial court, in camera with a representative of the Sheriff's Department, reviewed the relevant documents. On December 12, 2022, the court ordered a partial unsealing of the records with redactions.
On March 14, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal. Two months later, on May 11, 2023, the Sheriff's Department filed a request to unseal the search warrant records in their entirety, with the exception of the affiant's name. The trial court granted the request, and the search records were unsealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Mootness doctrine
Once claims have been resolved, an appellate court "must consider whether [its] opinion is advisory in the sense that it will resolve only a question of 'academic importance' [citations] and not an actual controversy that will result in a judgment that offers effectual relief to the parties." (Hensley v. San Diego Gas &Electric Co. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1337, 1344.) "The policy behind this mootness principle is that courts decide justiciable controversies and will not render advisory opinions." (Ibid.)
"A case is considered moot when 'the question addressed was at one time a live issue in the case,' but has been deprived of life 'because of events occurring after the judicial process was initiated.'" (Wilson &Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574.) "When events render a case moot, the court, whether trial or appellate, should generally dismiss it." (Ibid.) This is because courts are "tasked with the duty '"to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."'" (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.)
However, "[e]ven when a case is moot, courts may exercise their 'inherent discretion' to reach the merits of the dispute. [Citation.] As a rule, courts will generally . . . review a moot case when 'the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur,' 'when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties,' or 'when a material question remains for the court's determination.'" (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.)
II. This appeal is moot because the primary relief sought has been obtained
Unsealing the search warrant records was appellant's primary legitimate goal. Its appeal challenges the order partially unsealing the records. After the records were unsealed, the primary relief sought by appellant was granted. As a result, the unsealing order rendered appellant's appeal moot.
Any decision we might render on the propriety of the initial sealing order would have no practical effect on the parties' rights. The records are now public, and a ruling from this court will change nothing. No meaningful relief can be provided regarding the unsealed documents.
Appellant argues that the appeal is not entirely moot because the transcripts of the in camera hearings remain sealed. These transcripts concern the trial court's in camera review of the sealed records and nothing more. Appellant's goal was an order unsealing the warrant records to review the bases for issuing the warrants and for sealing the records. Since these records have been unsealed, appellant has obtained the primary relief sought and no practical benefit is obtained from unsealing the transcript of the in camera proceedings.
Appellant also contends we should exercise our discretion and issue a published, advisory opinion to provide guidance to trial courts when a law enforcement agency urges sealing of search warrant records "even though secrecy is not permitted by law." Trial courts need no such guidance. Further, we find existing legal authority addresses the issue of sealing warrant records. (See, e.g., People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1021-1027 [holding that sealing orders for search warrant materials must be supported by compelling reasons and narrowly tailored, with courts required to consider less restrictive alternatives before sealing].)
We also find it unlikely there will be a recurrence of the controversy between these parties or that a material question remains for the court's determination. While we acknowledge the importance of public access to court records, the unique circumstances of this case-where the records were unsealed after the appeal was initiated-make it an unsuitable vehicle for establishing broader precedent.
Additionally, an opinion issued now would be an advisory opinion on the initial sealing order and would require us to affirm or reverse an order that has been superseded, potentially creating confusing precedent. Affirming would require the court to rule on the merits of a controversy that no longer exists. Reversing would be logically inconsistent with the current state of affairs (unsealed records) and could not provide any practical relief to the appellant.
The dismissal for mootness, therefore, respects judicial economy, adheres to the principle that courts should decide actual controversies, and avoids creating potentially problematic precedent based on a resolved dispute.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.
We concur: LUI, P. J., HOFFSTADT, J.