stipulation-order-seal-court-file.docx

1035-00002 · Calderwood & Harkness LLP · Pleadings & Court Filings

stipulation-order-seal-court-file.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

34 / 36 ← → ✕

Devon Archer (CA State Bar No. 289017) Priya Anand (CA State Bar No. 241563) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 628-4400 Facsimile: (213) 628-4401

Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: panand@calderwoodharkness.com

Attorneys for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

Filed: July 14, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION AND RECITALS

This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File ("Stipulation") is entered into by and between Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca ("Petitioner"), by and through her attorneys of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP (Devon Archer, Lead Associate; Priya Anand, Partner), 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90017, and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano ("Respondent"), by and through his attorneys of record, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP (Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Partner, CA State Bar No. 218453; Benjamin T. Okafor, Associate, CA State Bar No. 312776), 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505 (collectively, the "Parties").

The Parties submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to the Court and respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed order sealing the court file in the above-captioned action. In support thereof, the Parties set forth the following recitals:

A. The above-entitled action concerns post-dissolution custody, visitation, and child support matters arising from Case No. 22STFL09847, a proceeding for dissolution of domestic partnership. A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered by this Court on November 3, 2022. In that Judgment, jurisdiction was expressly reserved over all issues of legal and physical custody, visitation (parenting time), and child support pertaining to the Parties' two minor children, as more fully described below.

B. On May 2, 2023, Petitioner filed a Request for Order re Custody and Child Support ("RFO"), together with a supporting Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca, an Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150), and related exhibits. Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on or about May 22, 2023, together with his own Income and Expense Declaration. A hearing on the RFO was held on May 30, 2023, at which time the Court entered a Temporary Custody Order establishing interim arrangements for legal and physical custody of the minor children and setting the matter for further hearing.

C. The Parties are jointly filing this Stipulation concurrently with a separate Stipulation and Order for Appointment of Custody Evaluator, also filed on July 14, 2023, pursuant to which the Parties have stipulated to the appointment of a qualified custody evaluator to conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation of both Parties and their two minor children. That evaluation will generate confidential psychological evaluations of the minor children and the Parties, including detailed clinical interviews, psychological testing, home visits, collateral contact interviews, and a written report containing the evaluator's findings and recommendations. The forthcoming evaluation and the resulting report further underscore the need for sealing the court file in this matter.

D. This matter involves two minor children of the Parties: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, who is presently six (6) years of age, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, who is presently three (3) years of age (collectively, the "Minor Children").

E. The Parties' domestic partnership was registered with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under File No. DP-2015-038741. The domestic partnership was dissolved by Judgment of this Court on November 3, 2022, as set forth above.

F. On June 22, 2023, the Court appointed Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), pursuant to Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of the Minor Children in connection with the pending and anticipated custody proceedings. Minor's Counsel has been consulted regarding this Stipulation and consents to the proposed sealing on behalf of the Minor Children's interests, as more fully set forth below.

G. The Parties and Minor's Counsel believe that the sealing of the court file is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances of this case to protect the overriding privacy interests of the Minor Children, both Parties, and the integrity of the custody evaluation process. The Parties submit that the requirements for sealing under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., are fully satisfied, as set forth in detail in this Stipulation.

II. LEGAL BASIS FOR SEALING

A. Governing Authority

The sealing of court records in the Superior Court of California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. These rules establish a comprehensive framework balancing the public's constitutional right of access to court records against countervailing interests that, in appropriate cases, justify sealing.

Rule 2.550(c) provides that a court record must not be filed under seal without a court order, and that the court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. Rather, the court must make independent findings supporting the sealing. Rule 2.550(d) sets forth the standard the court must apply before ordering records sealed. Specifically, a court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish all of the following:

(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.

Rule 2.550(e) further provides that an order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and must direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. The order must conform to the requirements of Rule 2.550(e)(1) through (e)(2).

The Parties respectfully submit that each of the foregoing requirements is satisfied in this case, as demonstrated by the grounds set forth in Section III below.

B. Constitutional and Statutory Privacy Interests

The right of privacy is enshrined in the California Constitution. Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution provides: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (Emphasis added.) This constitutional right of privacy has been recognized by the California Supreme Court as an "inalienable right" that, in appropriate circumstances, constitutes an overriding interest sufficient to justify the sealing of court records. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35–37; In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1063–1066.

The California Family Code and the California Rules of Court contain numerous provisions reflecting a strong legislative and judicial policy of protecting the privacy of children and families involved in family law proceedings. Family Code section 3025.5 restricts public access to custody evaluation reports. Family Code section 3150 et seq. provides for the appointment of counsel to represent the interests of minor children, reflecting the Legislature's recognition that children in custody disputes have independent interests—including privacy interests—that require independent representation and protection.

California Rules of Court, Rule 5.120, addresses confidentiality in family law proceedings and provides the framework within which the court may restrict public access to information concerning minor children and sensitive family matters. Rule 5.120 is consistent with the broader rule of court governing sealed records (Rule 2.550) and supplements it in the family law context.

Additionally, the California courts have consistently recognized that the privacy interests of minor children constitute a particularly compelling overriding interest that may justify the sealing of court records. See, e.g., Dunmore Industries Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222 n.46 (recognizing that the privacy interests of children may constitute an overriding interest); In re Marriage of Burkle, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1063–1066 (upholding sealing order in high-profile dissolution proceeding to protect privacy of minor children and the parties).

III. GROUNDS FOR SEALING — STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING INTERESTS

The Parties respectfully submit that the following overriding interests, individually and collectively, overcome the right of public access to the court records in this matter and satisfy each of the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).

A. Privacy of the Minor Children

The most compelling overriding interest supporting the sealing of this court file is the privacy and well-being of the two Minor Children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

Isabela is six (6) years of age and is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located in Sherman Oaks, California. Mateo is three (3) years of age and is currently enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy. Both children are of tender years and are wholly unable to protect their own privacy interests. Neither child has the capacity to consent to or oppose the public dissemination of sensitive personal information about their family circumstances, psychological well-being, living arrangements, or relationships with their parents.

The court file in this matter already contains, and future filings will continue to contain, detailed personal information about the Minor Children, including but not limited to:

• Descriptions of the Minor Children's living arrangements, daily routines, and caregiving schedules at each parent's residence;

• Information about the Minor Children's educational placement, academic performance, and social development at Ridgeview Academy;

• Healthcare information pertaining to the Minor Children, including references to pediatric appointments, developmental assessments, and any behavioral or emotional concerns;

• Intimate details of the Minor Children's relationships with each parent, extended family members, and other significant persons in their lives;

• Allegations and counter-allegations by the Parties regarding parenting practices, decision-making, and the Minor Children's adjustment to the post-dissolution custody arrangements; and

• The forthcoming comprehensive custody evaluation report by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., which will contain psychological testing results, clinical interview summaries, behavioral observations, and professional opinions regarding the Minor Children's emotional and developmental needs.

The Parties have stipulated, in a concurrent filing, to the appointment of Dr. Sorensen as the custody evaluator in this matter. Dr. Sorensen's evaluation will involve psychological testing of both parents, clinical interviews with each parent individually and with each child, observation of each parent's interaction with the Minor Children, home visits to both the Petitioner's residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604, and the Respondent's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602, and collateral contact interviews with teachers, healthcare providers, and other individuals with knowledge of the Minor Children's circumstances. The resulting evaluation report will contain the most sensitive and personal information imaginable about these two young children.

The Minor Children's interest in being shielded from public exposure of these custody and psychological evaluation matters constitutes a compelling overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. The California courts have consistently recognized that the privacy of minor children is among the most weighty interests that a court may consider in evaluating a request to seal court records. See In re Marriage of Burkle, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1065–1066.

Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), was appointed by this Court on June 22, 2023, pursuant to Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of the Minor Children. Ms. Brannigan has been consulted regarding this Stipulation and the proposed sealing order. Ms. Brannigan has independently assessed the Minor Children's interests and has determined that sealing the court file is in the best interests of both Isabela and Mateo. Ms. Brannigan supports the sealing request and consents to the proposed order on behalf of the Minor Children.

B. Public-Facing Professional Status of Both Parties

In addition to the paramount privacy interests of the Minor Children, both Parties occupy public-facing professional positions in the entertainment industry that make the details of their personal and family lives a subject of potential public and media interest, thereby heightening the risk of harm from public access to the court file.

Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca holds the position of Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a mid-major streaming and production company headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. In this capacity, Ms. Fonseca oversees a slate of approximately eighteen (18) original series across multiple genres and platforms. She is responsible for development, greenlight decisions, talent negotiations, and strategic content partnerships. Ms. Fonseca regularly appears at industry conferences, participates in panel discussions, and is quoted in trade publications. She is a well-known figure in the media and entertainment industry, and her professional activities are the subject of regular coverage in publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. By virtue of her professional prominence, the details of Ms. Fonseca's personal and family life—including the circumstances of her custody dispute—are of potential interest to entertainment industry media, gossip outlets, and the general public.

Respondent Rafael J. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who works on feature films and episodic television productions. Mr. Medrano provides his professional services through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Mr. Medrano has earned screen credits on numerous critically acclaimed film and television projects, including multiple award-nominated productions. He is a recognized professional in the cinematography community and is known to industry professionals, audiences, and entertainment media. Like Ms. Fonseca, Mr. Medrano's professional activities and screen credits are publicly available, and the details of his personal and family life may be of interest to media outlets covering the entertainment industry.

Both Parties face a substantial probability that, absent sealing, the financial details, custody arrangements, psychological evaluations, and personal information contained in the court file would be accessed and disseminated by media outlets, entertainment industry publications, social media commentators, and the general public. Such dissemination would cause irreparable harm to the Parties' professional reputations and personal lives. More importantly, public disclosure of the intimate details of the Parties' custody dispute would inevitably expose the Minor Children to unwanted public attention, media scrutiny, and potential harassment or embarrassment, causing grave harm to the children's emotional well-being and development.

The Parties submit that the combination of their professional prominence and the sensitive nature of the proceedings creates a level of risk that substantially exceeds what would be present in a typical family law matter, and that this risk constitutes an overriding interest supporting the sealing of the court file. See In re Marriage of Burkle, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1063–1066 (recognizing that the public prominence of the parties in a dissolution proceeding is a relevant factor in evaluating whether sealing is appropriate).

C. Sensitive Financial Information

The court file contains, and will continue to contain, detailed and sensitive financial information about both Parties that constitutes confidential proprietary employment information and the disclosure of which would cause substantial harm.

The financial filings in this matter include, but are not limited to, Income and Expense Declarations (Judicial Council Form FL-150) filed by each Party, detailed compensation records from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. reflecting Ms. Fonseca's total compensation package, forensic accounting analyses of Respondent's freelance earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC, bank account statements, investment account statements, tax returns, and child support calculations performed pursuant to the applicable guideline formula.

Specifically, the court file reveals that Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000), comprising base salary, discretionary annual bonuses, and equity grants (restricted stock units). These compensation details are subject to confidentiality provisions in Ms. Fonseca's employment agreement with Luminos Entertainment Group and constitute sensitive proprietary information the disclosure of which could prejudice Ms. Fonseca's professional standing and negotiating position within the entertainment industry.

Similarly, the court file reveals that Mr. Medrano's variable annual income from freelance cinematography work, as reflected through the financial records of Medrano Visuals, LLC, averages approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000) over the most recent three-year period (2020–2022), with significant year-to-year variation depending on the number and scale of projects. These income details are likewise sensitive and their public disclosure could adversely affect Mr. Medrano's ability to negotiate fair compensation for future projects and could disrupt his professional relationships.

The disclosure of detailed financial information of this nature would prejudice both Parties' negotiating positions in their respective professional endeavors, violate their reasonable expectations of financial privacy, and serve no legitimate public interest. The Parties respectfully submit that the confidentiality of this financial information constitutes an overriding interest supporting the sealing of the court file.

D. Confidentiality of the Custody Evaluation

As set forth above, the Parties have stipulated to the appointment of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., as the custody evaluator in this matter. The Stipulation and Order for Appointment of Custody Evaluator is being filed concurrently with this Stipulation.

The forthcoming custody evaluation will be comprehensive in scope and will involve, among other things:

• Administration of standardized psychological tests and instruments to both Petitioner and Respondent;

• Individual clinical interviews with each parent, conducted over multiple sessions;

• Individual developmental and clinical interviews with each of the Minor Children, adapted to the children's respective ages and developmental stages;

• Observation of parent-child interactions, both structured and unstructured, at each parent's home;

• Home visits to both residences, including the Petitioner's residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604, and the Respondent's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602;

• Collateral contact interviews with individuals identified by each parent and by Minor's Counsel, which may include teachers, school administrators, pediatricians, therapists, extended family members, neighbors, and childcare providers; and

• A comprehensive written evaluation report containing Dr. Sorensen's findings, clinical impressions, diagnoses (if any), and recommendations regarding custody, visitation, and parenting arrangements.

The evaluation report will contain the most highly sensitive psychological and behavioral information about both parents and both Minor Children. Public access to this material would cause grave harm to the Minor Children, who would be subjected to the public dissemination of their most intimate psychological and emotional information at an age when they are unable to understand, contextualize, or defend against such exposure. Public access would also undermine the therapeutic and evaluative processes by chilling the candor of the Parties and collateral contacts, thereby diminishing the quality and reliability of the evaluation.

Family Code section 3025.5 reflects the Legislature's recognition that custody evaluation reports contain uniquely sensitive information warranting confidential treatment. The confidentiality of the custody evaluation constitutes a further overriding interest supporting the sealing of the court file.

IV. SCOPE OF PROPOSED SEALING ORDER

A. Records to Be Sealed

The Parties respectfully request that the Court order the sealing of the entire court file in Case No. 22STFL09847, including but not limited to the following documents:

1. All pleadings, declarations, memoranda of points and authorities, and supporting documents filed or to be filed in this action;

2. The Request for Order re Custody and Child Support filed by Petitioner on May 2, 2023;

3. The Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca in Support of Request for Order, filed May 2, 2023;

4. The Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150) of Petitioner, filed May 2, 2023;

5. The Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150) of Respondent, filed on or about May 22, 2023;

6. The Responsive Declaration of Rafael J. Medrano, filed on or about May 22, 2023, and all supporting exhibits;

7. The Temporary Custody Order entered by the Court on May 30, 2023;

8. The Stipulation and Order for Appointment of Custody Evaluator filed July 14, 2023;

9. This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File;

10. The custody evaluation report of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., when filed with the Court;

11. Any future stipulations, motions, requests for order, responsive declarations, reply declarations, financial disclosures, subpoenaed records, or other documents filed in connection with this matter;

12. Any orders of the Court filed in this matter, except as set forth in subsection B below;

13. Any settlement agreements, stipulated judgments, or other agreements filed in connection with this matter; and

14. All attachments, exhibits, and appendices to any of the foregoing documents.

B. Exceptions. The Parties recognize that certain minimal information regarding the existence of the case may need to remain publicly accessible. Accordingly, the Parties propose the following exceptions to the sealing order:

1. The docket or register of actions maintained by the Clerk of the Court may remain publicly accessible to the extent it reflects only the case number, the names of the parties, and the dates of filings, without any substantive content, descriptions, or summaries of the documents filed. In the alternative, if the Court deems it appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Parties respectfully request that even the register of actions be sealed to the extent necessary to prevent public access to information that could lead to the identification of the substance of the proceedings.

2. Any order of the Court itself, to the extent required by law to be publicly accessible, may be filed in redacted form, omitting all financial details (including income, asset, and support figures), residential addresses, and any information identifying the Minor Children's school, healthcare providers, or other sensitive identifying information. Any such redacted order shall be prepared by counsel for the Parties in consultation with Minor's Counsel and submitted to the Court for approval prior to filing in the public record.

C. Narrow Tailoring

The Parties acknowledge and respect the strong presumption of public access to court records recognized under California law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Parties submit, however, that the proposed sealing of the entire court file is narrowly tailored to protect only the sensitive information described in Section III above.

The Parties have carefully considered whether less restrictive alternatives—such as the redaction of specific passages, names, or figures from individual documents—would adequately protect the identified overriding interests. The Parties have concluded, and respectfully represent to the Court, that partial redaction is not a feasible or adequate alternative in this case for the following reasons:

1. The sensitive information requiring protection—including details about the Minor Children's living arrangements, psychological well-being, educational placement, and relationships with each parent; the Parties' financial circumstances; and the custody evaluation process and findings—is not confined to discrete, identifiable passages. Rather, this information is interwoven throughout every filing in the court file, including factual allegations in declarations, arguments in memoranda, financial figures in income and expense declarations, and findings in court orders.

2. Redaction of the sensitive information from individual documents would render those documents unintelligible, as the redacted material constitutes the core substantive content of the filings.

3. The volume and complexity of the filings, both existing and anticipated, would make a document-by-document, page-by-page redaction process extraordinarily burdensome, time-consuming, and costly, without meaningfully advancing the right of public access, as the redacted versions of the documents would contain little or no substantive information of public interest.

4. Given the Parties' professional prominence, even partially redacted documents could be pieced together by media outlets or members of the public to reconstruct the sensitive information the sealing order is intended to protect, thereby defeating the purpose of the sealing.

For all of these reasons, the Parties respectfully submit that sealing of the entire court file is the least restrictive means adequate to protect the identified overriding interests, and that no less restrictive alternative would suffice.

V. STIPULATION TERMS

The Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

A. Joint Request

Both Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano jointly request that the Court seal the court file in Case No. 22STFL09847 pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., on the grounds and for the reasons set forth in this Stipulation. This joint request is made freely, voluntarily, and after each Party has consulted with his or her respective counsel regarding the legal basis for and implications of the proposed sealing order.

B. Consent of Minor's Counsel

Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), has been notified of and has reviewed this Stipulation. Ms. Brannigan has independently assessed the interests of the Minor Children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, and has determined that sealing the court file is in the best interests of both children. Ms. Brannigan consents to the proposed sealing on behalf of the Minor Children's interests and has indicated her consent by executing the signature block set forth in Section VI.C below.

C. Duration. The sealing order requested herein shall remain in effect until further order of the Court. The Parties acknowledge that the Court retains jurisdiction to modify or vacate the sealing order at any time upon a showing of changed circumstances or for other good cause. Either Party, or Minor's Counsel, may move to modify or vacate the sealing order upon a showing of changed circumstances, subject to the notice and hearing requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551.

D. Access by Parties and Counsel

Notwithstanding the sealing of the court file, the sealed records shall remain fully accessible to the following persons without the need for any further court order:

1. Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and her attorneys of record at Calderwood & Harkness LLP, and any successor counsel of record for Petitioner;

2. Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano and his attorneys of record at Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, and any successor counsel of record for Respondent;

3. Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., and any successor Minor's Counsel appointed by the Court;

4. The custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., and any successor or supplemental evaluator appointed by the Court;

5. Any parenting plan coordinator, mediator, or other court-appointed professional appointed by the Court in connection with this matter; and

6. All court personnel, including the judicial officer assigned to this matter, court clerks, courtroom staff, and any other personnel of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, who require access to the file in the performance of their official duties.

E. Access by Third Parties

Any third party seeking access to the sealed records in this matter shall be required to file a noticed motion with this Court demonstrating good cause for the requested access. Any such motion shall be served on all parties and on Minor's Counsel in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court. The Parties and Minor's Counsel shall be given reasonable notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to file written opposition, before any sealed records are unsealed or disclosed to any third party. The Court shall not unseal any records unless the moving party satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(h).

VI. SIGNATURE BLOCKS

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter the [Proposed] Order set forth in Section VII below, sealing the court file in Case No. 22STFL09847 in accordance with the terms of this Stipulation.

Dated: July 14, 2023

A. Petitioner's Counsel

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Devon Archer, Lead Associate Priya Anand, Partner 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017

Attorneys for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA

B. Respondent's Counsel

KWAN, DELACROIX & SAMUELS LLP

By: ________

Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Partner (CA State Bar No. 218453)

Benjamin T. Okafor, Associate (CA State Bar No. 312776) 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505

Attorneys for Respondent RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO

C. Minor's Counsel — Consent

________________________________________

Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894) 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 Woodland Hills, California 91367

Minor's Counsel for ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO

Minor's Counsel has reviewed this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File and consents to the proposed sealing order on behalf of the interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

VII. [PROPOSED] ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File filed by the Parties on July 14, 2023, together with all supporting documents and the case file, and the Court having considered the representations and arguments of counsel for both Parties and the consent of Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby makes the following findings and order:

FINDINGS. The Court expressly finds as follows:

1. There exist overriding interests that overcome the right of public access to the court records in this matter. Specifically, the Court finds the following overriding interests:

(a) The constitutional privacy rights of the two Minor Children. Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: February 11, 2017) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: August 29, 2019) are minor children of tender years who are unable to protect their own privacy interests. The court file contains and will contain highly sensitive information about these children, including their living arrangements, psychological evaluations, educational records, healthcare information, and intimate details of their daily lives and relationships with each parent. The privacy interests of these minor children, protected by Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution and the Family Code, constitute a compelling overriding interest.

(b) The privacy interests of both Parties. Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano are both public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry whose personal and family matters are of potential interest to media outlets and the general public. The Court finds that the Parties' reasonable expectations of privacy in the details of their custody dispute, financial circumstances, and personal lives constitute an overriding interest that supports sealing.

(c) The confidentiality of sensitive financial disclosures. The court file contains detailed financial information, including compensation and income data, the disclosure of which would prejudice the Parties' professional and financial interests and violate their reasonable expectations of financial privacy.

(d) The confidentiality of forthcoming psychological evaluations. The Parties have stipulated to the appointment of a custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., whose comprehensive evaluation will generate highly sensitive psychological and behavioral information about both parents and both Minor Children. Public access to such information would cause grave harm to the Minor Children and undermine the integrity of the evaluative process.

2. The identified overriding interests support sealing the records in this case. Each of the overriding interests identified above is directly and substantially implicated by the contents of the court file, and each interest is advanced by the sealing of the file.

3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interests identified above will be prejudiced if the court records are not sealed. Given the Parties' public profiles in the entertainment industry and the sensitive nature of the information contained in the file—including details of the Minor Children's lives, psychological evaluations, and financial data—there is a substantial probability that, absent sealing, the information in the court file would be accessed and disseminated by media outlets and the general public, causing irreparable harm to the Minor Children's privacy and well-being, the Parties' professional reputations and personal lives, and the integrity of the custody evaluation process.

4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. The Court finds that the sensitive information requiring protection pervades all filings in the court file and cannot be adequately protected by less restrictive means such as partial redaction. Redaction of individual documents would render them unintelligible and would not adequately protect the identified overriding interests, as even partially redacted documents could be pieced together to reconstruct the sensitive information. Sealing of the entire court file, with the exceptions noted below, is the narrowest measure adequate to protect the identified interests.

5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interests identified herein. The Court has considered and rejected less restrictive alternatives, including partial redaction, document-by-document sealing, and the use of pseudonyms, and finds that none of these alternatives would adequately protect the identified overriding interests given the nature and volume of the sensitive information in the file.

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The entire court file in Case No. 22STFL09847, In re the Matter of Fonseca and Medrano, including all documents heretofore filed and all documents hereafter filed in this action, is hereby SEALED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. The sealed file shall include, without limitation, all pleadings, declarations, memoranda, financial disclosures, orders, stipulations, evaluation reports, settlement agreements, and all attachments and exhibits thereto.

2. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to seal the file and to restrict public access thereto. The Clerk shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the sealed file is not accessible to the public, whether in person, electronically, or by any other means. Any entry on the court's public docket or register of actions shall be limited to the case number, the names of the parties, and the dates of filings, without any substantive content, descriptions, or summaries of the documents filed, unless the Court orders otherwise.

3. The sealed records shall remain accessible to the following persons without the need for further court order:

(a) The Parties, Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano, and their respective attorneys of record, including any successor counsel of record;

(b) Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), and any successor Minor's Counsel appointed by the Court;

(c) The custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., and any successor or supplemental evaluator appointed by the Court;

(d) Any parenting plan coordinator, mediator, or other court-appointed professional appointed by the Court in connection with this matter; and

(e) All court personnel, including the judicial officer assigned to this matter, court clerks, courtroom staff, and any other personnel of the Superior Court who require access to the file in the performance of their official duties.

4. Any third party seeking access to the sealed records shall be required to file a noticed motion with this Court demonstrating good cause for the requested access, in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(h). Such motion shall be served on all parties and on Minor's Counsel, who shall be given reasonable notice and a full opportunity to be heard before any records are unsealed or disclosed.

5. This Order shall remain in effect until further order of this Court. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify or vacate this Order at any time upon a showing of changed circumstances or for other good cause, subject to the notice and hearing requirements of applicable law.

6. This Order is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) and (e), and is based on the express findings set forth above.

Dated: _____, 2023

________________________________________

HON. CATHERINE S. YAMAMOTO JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

VIII. PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I, Maria Elena Gutierrez, declare:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90017.

On July 14, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SEAL COURT FILE

on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and/or by electronic service as follows:

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the document(s) listed above to be served electronically via the firm's electronic service provider on the following persons at the email addresses listed below:

Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Esq. Benjamin T. Okafor, Esq. Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505

Email: gkwan@kwandelacroix.com

Email: bokafor@kwandelacroix.com

Attorneys for Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano

Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 Woodland Hills, California 91367

Email: tbrannigan@branniganlaw.com

Minor's Counsel for Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano

BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL: In addition to electronic service, I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed to each of the persons listed above and deposited such envelope(s) in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 14, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

Maria Elena Gutierrez

In re the Matter of:	Case No. 22STFL09847
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA,	STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO SEAL COURT FILE

Petitioner,

[California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq.]

and

Date: July 14, 2023

RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO,

Judge: Hon. Catherine S. Yamamoto

Respondent.

In re the Matter of:	Case No. 22STFL09847
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA,	ORDER SEALING COURT FILE
Petitioner,	[California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq.]

and

RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO,

Devon Archer (CA State Bar No. 289017) Priya Anand (CA State Bar No. 241563) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 628-4400 Facsimile: (213) 628-4401
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: panand@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
Filed: July 14, 2023
I. INTRODUCTION AND RECITALS
This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File ("Stipulation") is entered into by and between Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca ("Petitioner"), by and through her attorneys of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP (Devon Archer, Lead Associate; Priya Anand, Partner), 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90017, and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano ("Respondent"), by and through his attorneys of record, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP (Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Partner, CA State Bar No. 218453; Benjamin T. Okafor, Associate, CA State Bar No. 312776), 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505 (collectively, the "Parties").
The Parties submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to the Court and respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed order sealing the court file in the above-captioned action. In support thereof, the Parties set forth the following recitals:
A. The above-entitled action concerns post-dissolution custody, visitation, and child support matters arising from Case No. 22STFL09847, a proceeding for dissolution of domestic partnership. A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered by this Court on November 3, 2022. In that Judgment, jurisdiction was expressly reserved over all issues of legal and physical custody, visitation (parenting time), and child support pertaining to the Parties' two minor children, as more fully described below.
B. On May 2, 2023, Petitioner filed a Request for Order re Custody and Child Support ("RFO"), together with a supporting Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca, an Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150), and related exhibits. Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on or about May 22, 2023, together with his own Income and Expense Declaration. A hearing on the RFO was held on May 30, 2023, at which time the Court entered a Temporary Custody Order establishing interim arrangements for legal and physical custody of the minor children and setting the matter for further hearing.
C. The Parties are jointly filing this Stipulation concurrently with a separate Stipulation and Order for Appointment of Custody Evaluator, also filed on July 14, 2023, pursuant to which the Parties have stipulated to the appointment of a qualified custody evaluator to conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation of both Parties and their two minor children. That evaluation will generate confidential psychological evaluations of the minor children and the Parties, including detailed clinical interviews, psychological testing, home visits, collateral contact interviews, and a written report containing the evaluator's findings and recommendations. The forthcoming evaluation and the resulting report further underscore the need for sealing the court file in this matter.
D. This matter involves two minor children of the Parties: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, who is presently six (6) years of age, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, who is presently three (3) years of age (collectively, the "Minor Children").
E. The Parties' domestic partnership was registered with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under File No. DP-2015-038741. The domestic partnership was dissolved by Judgment of this Court on November 3, 2022, as set forth above.
F. On June 22, 2023, the Court appointed Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), pursuant to Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of the Minor Children in connection with the pending and anticipated custody proceedings. Minor's Counsel has been consulted regarding this Stipulation and consents to the proposed sealing on behalf of the Minor Children's interests, as more fully set forth below.
G. The Parties and Minor's Counsel believe that the sealing of the court file is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances of this case to protect the overriding privacy interests of the Minor Children, both Parties, and the integrity of the custody evaluation process. The Parties submit that the requirements for sealing under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., are fully satisfied, as set forth in detail in this Stipulation.
II. LEGAL BASIS FOR SEALING
A. Governing Authority
The sealing of court records in the Superior Court of California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. These rules establish a comprehensive framework balancing the public's constitutional right of access to court records against countervailing interests that, in appropriate cases, justify sealing.
Rule 2.550(c) provides that a court record must not be filed under seal without a court order, and that the court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. Rather, the court must make independent findings supporting the sealing. Rule 2.550(d) sets forth the standard the court must apply before ordering records sealed. Specifically, a court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish all of the following:
(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.
Rule 2.550(e) further provides that an order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and must direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. The order must conform to the requirements of Rule 2.550(e)(1) through (e)(2).
The Parties respectfully submit that each of the foregoing requirements is satisfied in this case, as demonstrated by the grounds set forth in Section III below.
B. Constitutional and Statutory Privacy Interests
The right of privacy is enshrined in the California Constitution. Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution provides: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (Emphasis added.) This constitutional right of privacy has been recognized by the California Supreme Court as an "inalienable right" that, in appropriate circumstances, constitutes an overriding interest sufficient to justify the sealing of court records. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35–37; In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1063–1066.
The California Family Code and the California Rules of Court contain numerous provisions reflecting a strong legislative and judicial policy of protecting the privacy of children and families involved in family law proceedings. Family Code section 3025.5 restricts public access to custody evaluation reports. Family Code section 3150 et seq. provides for the appointment of counsel to represent the interests of minor children, reflecting the Legislature's recognition that children in custody disputes have independent interests—including privacy interests—that require independent representation and protection.
California Rules of Court, Rule 5.120, addresses confidentiality in family law proceedings and provides the framework within which the court may restrict public access to information concerning minor children and sensitive family matters. Rule 5.120 is consistent with the broader rule of court governing sealed records (Rule 2.550) and supplements it in the family law context.
Additionally, the California courts have consistently recognized that the privacy interests of minor children constitute a particularly compelling overriding interest that may justify the sealing of court records. See, e.g., Dunmore Industries Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222 n.46 (recognizing that the privacy interests of children may constitute an overriding interest); In re Marriage of Burkle, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1063–1066 (upholding sealing order in high-profile dissolution proceeding to protect privacy of minor children and the parties).
III. GROUNDS FOR SEALING — STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING INTERESTS
The Parties respectfully submit that the following overriding interests, individually and collectively, overcome the right of public access to the court records in this matter and satisfy each of the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).
A. Privacy of the Minor Children
The most compelling overriding interest supporting the sealing of this court file is the privacy and well-being of the two Minor Children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
Isabela is six (6) years of age and is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located in Sherman Oaks, California. Mateo is three (3) years of age and is currently enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy. Both children are of tender years and are wholly unable to protect their own privacy interests. Neither child has the capacity to consent to or oppose the public dissemination of sensitive personal information about their family circumstances, psychological well-being, living arrangements, or relationships with their parents.
The court file in this matter already contains, and future filings will continue to contain, detailed personal information about the Minor Children, including but not limited to:
•  Descriptions of the Minor Children's living arrangements, daily routines, and caregiving schedules at each parent's residence;
•  Information about the Minor Children's educational placement, academic performance, and social development at Ridgeview Academy;
•  Healthcare information pertaining to the Minor Children, including references to pediatric appointments, developmental assessments, and any behavioral or emotional concerns;
•  Intimate details of the Minor Children's relationships with each parent, extended family members, and other significant persons in their lives;
•  Allegations and counter-allegations by the Parties regarding parenting practices, decision-making, and the Minor Children's adjustment to the post-dissolution custody arrangements; and
•  The forthcoming comprehensive custody evaluation report by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., which will contain psychological testing results, clinical interview summaries, behavioral observations, and professional opinions regarding the Minor Children's emotional and developmental needs.
The Parties have stipulated, in a concurrent filing, to the appointment of Dr. Sorensen as the custody evaluator in this matter. Dr. Sorensen's evaluation will involve psychological testing of both parents, clinical interviews with each parent individually and with each child, observation of each parent's interaction with the Minor Children, home visits to both the Petitioner's residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604, and the Respondent's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602, and collateral contact interviews with teachers, healthcare providers, and other individuals with knowledge of the Minor Children's circumstances. The resulting evaluation report will contain the most sensitive and personal information imaginable about these two young children.
The Minor Children's interest in being shielded from public exposure of these custody and psychological evaluation matters constitutes a compelling overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. The California courts have consistently recognized that the privacy of minor children is among the most weighty interests that a court may consider in evaluating a request to seal court records. See In re Marriage of Burkle, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1065–1066.
Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), was appointed by this Court on June 22, 2023, pursuant to Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of the Minor Children. Ms. Brannigan has been consulted regarding this Stipulation and the proposed sealing order. Ms. Brannigan has independently assessed the Minor Children's interests and has determined that sealing the court file is in the best interests of both Isabela and Mateo. Ms. Brannigan supports the sealing request and consents to the proposed order on behalf of the Minor Children.
B. Public-Facing Professional Status of Both Parties
In addition to the paramount privacy interests of the Minor Children, both Parties occupy public-facing professional positions in the entertainment industry that make the details of their personal and family lives a subject of potential public and media interest, thereby heightening the risk of harm from public access to the court file.
Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca holds the position of Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a mid-major streaming and production company headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. In this capacity, Ms. Fonseca oversees a slate of approximately eighteen (18) original series across multiple genres and platforms. She is responsible for development, greenlight decisions, talent negotiations, and strategic content partnerships. Ms. Fonseca regularly appears at industry conferences, participates in panel discussions, and is quoted in trade publications. She is a well-known figure in the media and entertainment industry, and her professional activities are the subject of regular coverage in publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. By virtue of her professional prominence, the details of Ms. Fonseca's personal and family life—including the circumstances of her custody dispute—are of potential interest to entertainment industry media, gossip outlets, and the general public.
Respondent Rafael J. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who works on feature films and episodic television productions. Mr. Medrano provides his professional services through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Mr. Medrano has earned screen credits on numerous critically acclaimed film and television projects, including multiple award-nominated productions. He is a recognized professional in the cinematography community and is known to industry professionals, audiences, and entertainment media. Like Ms. Fonseca, Mr. Medrano's professional activities and screen credits are publicly available, and the details of his personal and family life may be of interest to media outlets covering the entertainment industry.
Both Parties face a substantial probability that, absent sealing, the financial details, custody arrangements, psychological evaluations, and personal information contained in the court file would be accessed and disseminated by media outlets, entertainment industry publications, social media commentators, and the general public. Such dissemination would cause irreparable harm to the Parties' professional reputations and personal lives. More importantly, public disclosure of the intimate details of the Parties' custody dispute would inevitably expose the Minor Children to unwanted public attention, media scrutiny, and potential harassment or embarrassment, causing grave harm to the children's emotional well-being and development.
The Parties submit that the combination of their professional prominence and the sensitive nature of the proceedings creates a level of risk that substantially exceeds what would be present in a typical family law matter, and that this risk constitutes an overriding interest supporting the sealing of the court file. See In re Marriage of Burkle, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1063–1066 (recognizing that the public prominence of the parties in a dissolution proceeding is a relevant factor in evaluating whether sealing is appropriate).
C. Sensitive Financial Information
The court file contains, and will continue to contain, detailed and sensitive financial information about both Parties that constitutes confidential proprietary employment information and the disclosure of which would cause substantial harm.
The financial filings in this matter include, but are not limited to, Income and Expense Declarations (Judicial Council Form FL-150) filed by each Party, detailed compensation records from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. reflecting Ms. Fonseca's total compensation package, forensic accounting analyses of Respondent's freelance earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC, bank account statements, investment account statements, tax returns, and child support calculations performed pursuant to the applicable guideline formula.
Specifically, the court file reveals that Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000), comprising base salary, discretionary annual bonuses, and equity grants (restricted stock units). These compensation details are subject to confidentiality provisions in Ms. Fonseca's employment agreement with Luminos Entertainment Group and constitute sensitive proprietary information the disclosure of which could prejudice Ms. Fonseca's professional standing and negotiating position within the entertainment industry.
Similarly, the court file reveals that Mr. Medrano's variable annual income from freelance cinematography work, as reflected through the financial records of Medrano Visuals, LLC, averages approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000) over the most recent three-year period (2020–2022), with significant year-to-year variation depending on the number and scale of projects. These income details are likewise sensitive and their public disclosure could adversely affect Mr. Medrano's ability to negotiate fair compensation for future projects and could disrupt his professional relationships.
The disclosure of detailed financial information of this nature would prejudice both Parties' negotiating positions in their respective professional endeavors, violate their reasonable expectations of financial privacy, and serve no legitimate public interest. The Parties respectfully submit that the confidentiality of this financial information constitutes an overriding interest supporting the sealing of the court file.
D. Confidentiality of the Custody Evaluation
As set forth above, the Parties have stipulated to the appointment of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., as the custody evaluator in this matter. The Stipulation and Order for Appointment of Custody Evaluator is being filed concurrently with this Stipulation.
The forthcoming custody evaluation will be comprehensive in scope and will involve, among other things:
•  Administration of standardized psychological tests and instruments to both Petitioner and Respondent;
•  Individual clinical interviews with each parent, conducted over multiple sessions;
•  Individual developmental and clinical interviews with each of the Minor Children, adapted to the children's respective ages and developmental stages;
•  Observation of parent-child interactions, both structured and unstructured, at each parent's home;
•  Home visits to both residences, including the Petitioner's residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604, and the Respondent's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602;
•  Collateral contact interviews with individuals identified by each parent and by Minor's Counsel, which may include teachers, school administrators, pediatricians, therapists, extended family members, neighbors, and childcare providers; and
•  A comprehensive written evaluation report containing Dr. Sorensen's findings, clinical impressions, diagnoses (if any), and recommendations regarding custody, visitation, and parenting arrangements.
The evaluation report will contain the most highly sensitive psychological and behavioral information about both parents and both Minor Children. Public access to this material would cause grave harm to the Minor Children, who would be subjected to the public dissemination of their most intimate psychological and emotional information at an age when they are unable to understand, contextualize, or defend against such exposure. Public access would also undermine the therapeutic and evaluative processes by chilling the candor of the Parties and collateral contacts, thereby diminishing the quality and reliability of the evaluation.
Family Code section 3025.5 reflects the Legislature's recognition that custody evaluation reports contain uniquely sensitive information warranting confidential treatment. The confidentiality of the custody evaluation constitutes a further overriding interest supporting the sealing of the court file.
IV. SCOPE OF PROPOSED SEALING ORDER
A. Records to Be Sealed
The Parties respectfully request that the Court order the sealing of the entire court file in Case No. 22STFL09847, including but not limited to the following documents:
1.  All pleadings, declarations, memoranda of points and authorities, and supporting documents filed or to be filed in this action;
2.  The Request for Order re Custody and Child Support filed by Petitioner on May 2, 2023;
3.  The Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca in Support of Request for Order, filed May 2, 2023;
4.  The Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150) of Petitioner, filed May 2, 2023;
5.  The Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150) of Respondent, filed on or about May 22, 2023;
6.  The Responsive Declaration of Rafael J. Medrano, filed on or about May 22, 2023, and all supporting exhibits;
7.  The Temporary Custody Order entered by the Court on May 30, 2023;
8.  The Stipulation and Order for Appointment of Custody Evaluator filed July 14, 2023;
9.  This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File;
10.  The custody evaluation report of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., when filed with the Court;
11.  Any future stipulations, motions, requests for order, responsive declarations, reply declarations, financial disclosures, subpoenaed records, or other documents filed in connection with this matter;
12.  Any orders of the Court filed in this matter, except as set forth in subsection B below;
13.  Any settlement agreements, stipulated judgments, or other agreements filed in connection with this matter; and
14.  All attachments, exhibits, and appendices to any of the foregoing documents.
B. Exceptions.  The Parties recognize that certain minimal information regarding the existence of the case may need to remain publicly accessible. Accordingly, the Parties propose the following exceptions to the sealing order:
1.  The docket or register of actions maintained by the Clerk of the Court may remain publicly accessible to the extent it reflects only the case number, the names of the parties, and the dates of filings, without any substantive content, descriptions, or summaries of the documents filed. In the alternative, if the Court deems it appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Parties respectfully request that even the register of actions be sealed to the extent necessary to prevent public access to information that could lead to the identification of the substance of the proceedings.
2.  Any order of the Court itself, to the extent required by law to be publicly accessible, may be filed in redacted form, omitting all financial details (including income, asset, and support figures), residential addresses, and any information identifying the Minor Children's school, healthcare providers, or other sensitive identifying information. Any such redacted order shall be prepared by counsel for the Parties in consultation with Minor's Counsel and submitted to the Court for approval prior to filing in the public record.
C. Narrow Tailoring
The Parties acknowledge and respect the strong presumption of public access to court records recognized under California law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Parties submit, however, that the proposed sealing of the entire court file is narrowly tailored to protect only the sensitive information described in Section III above.
The Parties have carefully considered whether less restrictive alternatives—such as the redaction of specific passages, names, or figures from individual documents—would adequately protect the identified overriding interests. The Parties have concluded, and respectfully represent to the Court, that partial redaction is not a feasible or adequate alternative in this case for the following reasons:
1.  The sensitive information requiring protection—including details about the Minor Children's living arrangements, psychological well-being, educational placement, and relationships with each parent; the Parties' financial circumstances; and the custody evaluation process and findings—is not confined to discrete, identifiable passages. Rather, this information is interwoven throughout every filing in the court file, including factual allegations in declarations, arguments in memoranda, financial figures in income and expense declarations, and findings in court orders.
2.  Redaction of the sensitive information from individual documents would render those documents unintelligible, as the redacted material constitutes the core substantive content of the filings.
3.  The volume and complexity of the filings, both existing and anticipated, would make a document-by-document, page-by-page redaction process extraordinarily burdensome, time-consuming, and costly, without meaningfully advancing the right of public access, as the redacted versions of the documents would contain little or no substantive information of public interest.
4.  Given the Parties' professional prominence, even partially redacted documents could be pieced together by media outlets or members of the public to reconstruct the sensitive information the sealing order is intended to protect, thereby defeating the purpose of the sealing.
For all of these reasons, the Parties respectfully submit that sealing of the entire court file is the least restrictive means adequate to protect the identified overriding interests, and that no less restrictive alternative would suffice.
V. STIPULATION TERMS
The Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
A. Joint Request
Both Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano jointly request that the Court seal the court file in Case No. 22STFL09847 pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., on the grounds and for the reasons set forth in this Stipulation. This joint request is made freely, voluntarily, and after each Party has consulted with his or her respective counsel regarding the legal basis for and implications of the proposed sealing order.
B. Consent of Minor's Counsel
Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), has been notified of and has reviewed this Stipulation. Ms. Brannigan has independently assessed the interests of the Minor Children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, and has determined that sealing the court file is in the best interests of both children. Ms. Brannigan consents to the proposed sealing on behalf of the Minor Children's interests and has indicated her consent by executing the signature block set forth in Section VI.C below.
C. Duration.  The sealing order requested herein shall remain in effect until further order of the Court. The Parties acknowledge that the Court retains jurisdiction to modify or vacate the sealing order at any time upon a showing of changed circumstances or for other good cause. Either Party, or Minor's Counsel, may move to modify or vacate the sealing order upon a showing of changed circumstances, subject to the notice and hearing requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551.
D. Access by Parties and Counsel
Notwithstanding the sealing of the court file, the sealed records shall remain fully accessible to the following persons without the need for any further court order:
1.  Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and her attorneys of record at Calderwood & Harkness LLP, and any successor counsel of record for Petitioner;
2.  Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano and his attorneys of record at Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, and any successor counsel of record for Respondent;
3.  Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., and any successor Minor's Counsel appointed by the Court;
4.  The custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., and any successor or supplemental evaluator appointed by the Court;
5.  Any parenting plan coordinator, mediator, or other court-appointed professional appointed by the Court in connection with this matter; and
6.  All court personnel, including the judicial officer assigned to this matter, court clerks, courtroom staff, and any other personnel of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, who require access to the file in the performance of their official duties.
E. Access by Third Parties
Any third party seeking access to the sealed records in this matter shall be required to file a noticed motion with this Court demonstrating good cause for the requested access. Any such motion shall be served on all parties and on Minor's Counsel in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court. The Parties and Minor's Counsel shall be given reasonable notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to file written opposition, before any sealed records are unsealed or disclosed to any third party. The Court shall not unseal any records unless the moving party satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(h).
VI. SIGNATURE BLOCKS
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter the [Proposed] Order set forth in Section VII below, sealing the court file in Case No. 22STFL09847 in accordance with the terms of this Stipulation.
Dated: July 14, 2023
A. Petitioner's Counsel
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer, Lead Associate Priya Anand, Partner 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017
Attorneys for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA
B. Respondent's Counsel
KWAN, DELACROIX & SAMUELS LLP
By: ________
Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Partner (CA State Bar No. 218453)
Benjamin T. Okafor, Associate (CA State Bar No. 312776) 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505
Attorneys for Respondent RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO
C. Minor's Counsel — Consent
________________________________________
Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894) 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 Woodland Hills, California 91367
Minor's Counsel for ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO
Minor's Counsel has reviewed this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File and consents to the proposed sealing order on behalf of the interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
VII. [PROPOSED] ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Seal Court File filed by the Parties on July 14, 2023, together with all supporting documents and the case file, and the Court having considered the representations and arguments of counsel for both Parties and the consent of Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby makes the following findings and order:
FINDINGS.  The Court expressly finds as follows:
1. There exist overriding interests that overcome the right of public access to the court records in this matter. Specifically, the Court finds the following overriding interests:
(a) The constitutional privacy rights of the two Minor Children. Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: February 11, 2017) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: August 29, 2019) are minor children of tender years who are unable to protect their own privacy interests. The court file contains and will contain highly sensitive information about these children, including their living arrangements, psychological evaluations, educational records, healthcare information, and intimate details of their daily lives and relationships with each parent. The privacy interests of these minor children, protected by Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution and the Family Code, constitute a compelling overriding interest.
(b) The privacy interests of both Parties. Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano are both public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry whose personal and family matters are of potential interest to media outlets and the general public. The Court finds that the Parties' reasonable expectations of privacy in the details of their custody dispute, financial circumstances, and personal lives constitute an overriding interest that supports sealing.
(c) The confidentiality of sensitive financial disclosures. The court file contains detailed financial information, including compensation and income data, the disclosure of which would prejudice the Parties' professional and financial interests and violate their reasonable expectations of financial privacy.
(d) The confidentiality of forthcoming psychological evaluations. The Parties have stipulated to the appointment of a custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., whose comprehensive evaluation will generate highly sensitive psychological and behavioral information about both parents and both Minor Children. Public access to such information would cause grave harm to the Minor Children and undermine the integrity of the evaluative process.
2. The identified overriding interests support sealing the records in this case. Each of the overriding interests identified above is directly and substantially implicated by the contents of the court file, and each interest is advanced by the sealing of the file.
3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interests identified above will be prejudiced if the court records are not sealed. Given the Parties' public profiles in the entertainment industry and the sensitive nature of the information contained in the file—including details of the Minor Children's lives, psychological evaluations, and financial data—there is a substantial probability that, absent sealing, the information in the court file would be accessed and disseminated by media outlets and the general public, causing irreparable harm to the Minor Children's privacy and well-being, the Parties' professional reputations and personal lives, and the integrity of the custody evaluation process.
4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. The Court finds that the sensitive information requiring protection pervades all filings in the court file and cannot be adequately protected by less restrictive means such as partial redaction. Redaction of individual documents would render them unintelligible and would not adequately protect the identified overriding interests, as even partially redacted documents could be pieced together to reconstruct the sensitive information. Sealing of the entire court file, with the exceptions noted below, is the narrowest measure adequate to protect the identified interests.
5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interests identified herein. The Court has considered and rejected less restrictive alternatives, including partial redaction, document-by-document sealing, and the use of pseudonyms, and finds that none of these alternatives would adequately protect the identified overriding interests given the nature and volume of the sensitive information in the file.
ORDER.  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The entire court file in Case No. 22STFL09847, In re the Matter of Fonseca and Medrano, including all documents heretofore filed and all documents hereafter filed in this action, is hereby SEALED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. The sealed file shall include, without limitation, all pleadings, declarations, memoranda, financial disclosures, orders, stipulations, evaluation reports, settlement agreements, and all attachments and exhibits thereto.
2. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to seal the file and to restrict public access thereto. The Clerk shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the sealed file is not accessible to the public, whether in person, electronically, or by any other means. Any entry on the court's public docket or register of actions shall be limited to the case number, the names of the parties, and the dates of filings, without any substantive content, descriptions, or summaries of the documents filed, unless the Court orders otherwise.
3. The sealed records shall remain accessible to the following persons without the need for further court order:
(a) The Parties, Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano, and their respective attorneys of record, including any successor counsel of record;
(b) Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), and any successor Minor's Counsel appointed by the Court;
(c) The custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., and any successor or supplemental evaluator appointed by the Court;
(d) Any parenting plan coordinator, mediator, or other court-appointed professional appointed by the Court in connection with this matter; and
(e) All court personnel, including the judicial officer assigned to this matter, court clerks, courtroom staff, and any other personnel of the Superior Court who require access to the file in the performance of their official duties.
4. Any third party seeking access to the sealed records shall be required to file a noticed motion with this Court demonstrating good cause for the requested access, in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(h). Such motion shall be served on all parties and on Minor's Counsel, who shall be given reasonable notice and a full opportunity to be heard before any records are unsealed or disclosed.
5. This Order shall remain in effect until further order of this Court. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify or vacate this Order at any time upon a showing of changed circumstances or for other good cause, subject to the notice and hearing requirements of applicable law.
6. This Order is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) and (e), and is based on the express findings set forth above.
Dated: _____, 2023
________________________________________
HON. CATHERINE S. YAMAMOTO JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
VIII. PROOF OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I, Maria Elena Gutierrez, declare:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90017.
On July 14, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as:
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SEAL COURT FILE
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and/or by electronic service as follows:
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the document(s) listed above to be served electronically via the firm's electronic service provider on the following persons at the email addresses listed below:
Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Esq. Benjamin T. Okafor, Esq. Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505
Email: gkwan@kwandelacroix.com
Email: bokafor@kwandelacroix.com
Attorneys for Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano
Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 Woodland Hills, California 91367
Email: tbrannigan@branniganlaw.com
Minor's Counsel for Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano
BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL: In addition to electronic service, I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed to each of the persons listed above and deposited such envelope(s) in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 14, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Maria Elena Gutierrez
In re the Matter of: | Case No. 22STFL09847
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA, | STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO SEAL COURT FILE
Petitioner,
[California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq.]
and
Date: July 14, 2023
RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO, | Dept.: 38
Judge: Hon. Catherine S. Yamamoto
Respondent.
In re the Matter of: | Case No. 22STFL09847
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA, | ORDER SEALING COURT FILE
Petitioner, | [California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq.]
and
RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO,
Respondent.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

I. INTRODUCTION AND RECITALS

II. LEGAL BASIS FOR SEALING

IV. SCOPE OF PROPOSED SEALING ORDER

V. STIPULATION TERMS

VI. SIGNATURE BLOCKS

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

KWAN, DELACROIX & SAMUELS LLP

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

HON. CATHERINE S. YAMAMOTO JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

VIII. PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO SEAL COURT FILE

RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO,

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts