Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Retroactive Records-Sealing to Hide Identity Properly Denied
Woman Who Sued in Own Name, Was Then Granted Status as Participant in Address-Confidentiality Program, Was Not Entitled to Have All Information in the Record Relating to Her True Name and Whereabouts Redacted, Opinion Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A woman who used her true name and address in filings over the first six months of her pro per litigation against a fellow Stanford undergraduate student she accused of libeling her, then switched to identifying herself as “Jane Doe,” had no right to have records in the case sealed by virtue of having gained the status, recognized by the Office of Secretary of State, as a participant in the “Safe at Home” address confidentiality program, the Court of Appeal has held.
Its unpublished opinion was filed Monday.
The appellant brought her action against Sydney Rose Prier on April 30, 2024, suing as Can Oral. On Sept. 14 of that year, her application for a protected status was granted.
Government Code §6206 provides that “[a]n adult person…who is domiciled in California, may apply to the Secretary of State to have an address designated by the Secretary of State serve as the person’s address….” The applicant must attest to being “a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, child abduction, or elder or dependent adult abuse….”
CCP §367.3
Oral then moved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §367.3 for an order sealing records in the case to the extent of redacting identifying information. Subd. (b)(1) of that section provides:
“A protected person who is a party in a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the protected person and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person.”
The motion was denied on Oct. 24, 2024, by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Evette Pennypacker, finding that the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d), were not met. That provision says:
The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: [¶] (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; [¶] (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; [¶] (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; [¶] (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”
Third Factor
Making note of the third factor, Pennypacker said that the records had been in public domain for most of the year and that “[s]ealing them now would not advance” Oral’s “identified overriding interest.” On Dec. 16, 2024, Pennypacker denied a second sealing request, noting that Oral had stated her “name in open court on the record” at a case management hearing six days earlier and her name was displayed on a screen which “everyone in the public courtroom…could easily see.” He remarked:
“On this record, the court has difficulty finding the legal threshold for sealing has been met and therefore denies this application.”
Danner’s Opinion
Justice Allison M. Danner of the Sixth District authored the opinion affirming Pennypacker’s order. She wrote:
“[T]he trial court’s finding in the October order with respect to the third factor of rule 2.550 finds substantial support in the record. Doe identified and used her true name and address in each of her filings between April 2024, and her first motion to seal in October 2024, including: the complaint, summons, and civil case cover sheet filed on April 30, 2024, the May 20, 2024 motion for peremptory challenge, a June 4, 2024 request for entry of default, two July 31, 2024 applications to extend time to file and/or serve documents, an August 1, 2024 case management statement, and the accompanying proofs of service.
Oral argued that under Code of Civil Procedure §367.3(b)(4), the court “must” seal records based on a party being a participant in the Safe at Home program. That provision says that “[t]he court, on motion of the protected person, may order a record or part of a record to be filed under seal….”
Danner italicized the word “may,” noting that it connotes discretion, and found no abuse of discretion.
The case is Doe v. Prier, H052667.
Prier did not participate in the appeal. He is now vice provost for undergraduate education at Stanford.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company