two-stage analysis in California

2024(People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746 [trial court abuses discretion when ruling rests on legal error]; see PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1697 , 1714–1715 [trial court erred in ordering search warrant affidavit to remain sealed on ground that disclosure would adversely affect criminal investigation, where nothing in record suggested that court either “undertook the two-stage analysis of confidentiality and public interest necessary to support the sealing of the affidavit” or “considered the possibility of redacting the affidavi

2000(Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 125 [trial court failed to make threshold determination whether information was acquired in confidence]; Rubin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 586 [same]; PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1714 & fn. 15 [there was nothing in the record to suggest the trial court undertook the two-stage analysis of confidentiality and public interest necessary to support its nondisclosure order].) We do not attempt to control in advance the trial court’s exercise of its discretion.

2024On remand, depending on the outcome of the court’s determination regarding sealing, the court should allow Parker to supplement his motions or, if necessary, proceed to a further hearing. ( Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 974– 975; People v. Heslington (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 947 , 957–959.) 6 B.

2020(See Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 957, 964-967, 972 ; Cal. Judges Benchbook: Search and Seizure, supra, § 2.51; Caskey, Cal. Search & Seizure, supra, § 3:35.) People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102 , the only case on which the People appear to rely with respect to the merits of the continued sealing, is inapposite, as it concerned neither the official information privilege nor a motion to unseal a search warrant affidavit; rather, it concerned a defendant’s motion for disclosure of a confidential 13 informant’s identity on the ground that the informant was a material witness on the issue of guil

2024(People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746 [trial court abuses discretion when ruling rests on legal error]; see PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1697 , 1714–1715 [trial court erred in ordering search warrant affidavit to remain sealed on ground that disclosure would adversely affect criminal investigation, where nothing in record suggested that court either “undertook the two-stage analysis of confidentiality and public interest necessary to support the sealing of the affidavit” or “considered the possibility of redacting the affidavi

2020Code, § 1040, subd. (b); PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 25 12 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1714-1715 [trial court erred in ordering search warrant affidavit to remain sealed on ground that disclosure would adversely affect criminal investigation, where nothing in record suggested that court either “undertook the two-stage analysis of confidentiality and public interest necessary to support the sealing of the affidavit” or “considered the possibility of redacting the affidavit and sealing only that portion which might be found . . . to be official information”]; cf. Marcos B., supra,

2015The moving defendant’s burden is to demonstrate that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken “in furtherance of the [defendant]’s right of petition or free speech . . . .” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) [Second,] [i]f the court finds such a showing has been made, it then determines whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Drummond, v. Desmarais (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 439, 448-449 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 183 ] (Drummond).) “A plaintiff establishes the requisite probability of success by ‘ “stat[ing] and substantiating] a legal

2015The moving defendant’s burden is to demonstrate that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken “in furtherance of the [defendant]’s right of petition or free speech . . . .” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) [Second,] [i]f the court finds such a showing has been made, it then determines whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Drummond, v. Desmarais (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 439, 448-449 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 183 ] (Drummond).) “A plaintiff establishes the requisite probability of success by ‘ “stat[ing] and substantiating] a legal

2000(Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 125 [trial court failed to make threshold determination whether information was acquired in confidence]; Rubin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 586 [same]; PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1714 & fn. 15 [there was nothing in the record to suggest the trial court undertook the two-stage analysis of confidentiality and public interest necessary to support its nondisclosure order].) We do not attempt to control in advance the trial court’s exercise of its discretion.

2000(Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 125 [trial court failed to make threshold determination whether information was acquired in confidence]; Rubin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 586 [same]; PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1714 & fn. 15 [there was nothing in the record to suggest the trial court undertook the two-stage analysis of confidentiality and public interest necessary to support its nondisclosure order].) We do not attempt to control in advance the trial court’s exercise of its discretion.