CATHERINE THOMAS v. LIONEL SANTOYO-VELAZQUEZ

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

5) 6 CATHERINE THOMAS,) Case Number: FDV-24-817779) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 23, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LIONEL SANTOYO-VELAZQUEZ,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) On 8/19/2024, Petitioner Catherine Thomas filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining 18 Order (DVRO) against Respondent Lionel Santoyo-Velazquez. 19 2) On 8/23/2024, Respondent filed a Request for DVRO against Petitioner. 20 3) The parties used to date and do not have minor children. 21 4) At the prior 9/6/2024 hearing, Respondent agreed to dismiss his Request for DVRO and the 22 parties agreed to continue the hearing on Petitioner’s Request for DVRO to 12/13/2024. 23 5) At the 12/13/2024 hearing, neither party appeared and Judge Gold dismissed Petitioner’s Request 24 for DVRO. 25 6) Now on for hearing is Respondent’s Request for Order filed 1/28/2026 asking the Court to seal 26 “all records” in this matter under California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

Respondent 27 states his relationship with Petitioner was very brief. Respondent states that a Google search of 28 his name shows this case posted on Trellis Law as the top result. Respondent states he is a 29 financial analyst and this will limit his ability to rise into more senior or management roles.

1 Respondent states friends, coworkers, and colleagues have asked Respondent about this after 2 seeing it online. Respondent states, “I believe the overriding interest exists, that it outweighs the 3 right of public access, and that there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be 4 prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” 5 7) Per the Proof of Service filed 5/26/2026, the Request for Order, blank Responsive Declaration, 6 Tentative Ruling Instructions, and Findings and Order After Hearing for the 4/9/2026 hearing 7 date were mailed to Petitioner’s attorney of record Charles Dresow on 5/26/2026. 8 8) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration. 9 B.

Findings and Order 10 1) Under California Rule of Court, rule 2.550(d), “The court may order that a record be filed under 11 seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that 12 overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the 13 record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the 14 record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive 15 means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” 16 2) The Court finds Respondent has not identified an overriding interest that overcomes the right of 17 public access to the record, nor does the Court find Respondent has shown that a substantial 18 probability exists that any purported overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not 19 sealed.

The Court denies Respondent’s request to seal records in this case. 20 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 21

25

29