WALTER MEDER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CPF25519335 - October 31, 2025 Hearing date: October 31, 2025 Case number: CPF25519335 Case title: WALTER MEDER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF Case Number: | | CPF25519335 | Case Title: | | WALTER MEDER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF | Court Date: | | 2025-10-31 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Seal Record | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for October 31, 2025, line 2. PETITIONER WALTER MEDER'S Motion To Seal Record.

The unopposed motion to seal the record of this case is denied without prejudice. Petitioner Walter Meder has filed this petition to set aside a decision of the California Department of Social Services. He now seeks an order sealing the record pursuant to Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551. His request appears to be to seal the record in its entirety. He states that the court record will contain sensitive personal information, such as biographical data, phone numbers. He also invokes 8 Code of Federal Regulations, 208.6, which concerns disclosure of certain asylum-related information. The present motion is denied without prejudice.

Rule of Court 2.550, subdivision (d), states that a court may order a record to be filed under seal only if makes a finding of fact establishing each of the following elements: "(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."

The court cannot make those factual findings on the present motion. It is not clear that the entirety of the record in this case will satisfy the sealing factors. Any sealing must be narrowly tailored; it may be that some information petitioner refers to (such as phone numbers) can be redacted and need not be submitted to the court for adjudication at all. Other portions of the record may not satisfy the sealing factors. It appears that other portions, such as an asylum application, qualify for sealing. Petitioner's request for an order sealing the entirety of the case file is not narrowly tailored to those portions of the record that satisfy the factors. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice. The court directs Petitioner to Rule of Court 2.551, which describes the procedure for lodging sealed material with the court that a party seeks to permanently seal.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.