OC Court Delays for 10 Months—Then Demands $4,240 for One Public Record
By Julie M. Anderson-Holburn
For nearly a year, the Orange County Superior Court (OCSC) either ignored, delayed, or refused to comply with my public records requests for basic judicial administrative data—records that California Rule of Court 10.500 requires courts to maintain.
Throughout 2024 and into 2025, OCSC:
Claimed it did not possess the requested records,
Insisted it would need to perform burdensome manual searches,
Refused to provide case numbers or party names (even though they are public information),
Asserted it had "no responsive documents" or "no way of producing accurate responsive reports,"
And argued it only retains records for six years, despite clear legal mandates.
Meanwhile, the same information I requested—case assignments by judge, attorneys, minors’ counsel, and evaluators—remained accessible to the public on courthouse computer terminals.
I also requested standard administrative records like caseload assignments to family law judges and case closeout and resolution reports—data courts routinely compile for internal management and oversight.
Instead of producing these public records, OCSC delayed for months and then demanded $4,240.40 to generate a single report.
Their actions raise serious concerns about transparency, public accountability, and possible retaliation against a journalist seeking to uncover systemic failures inside Orange County’s family courts.
Part I: Family Law Records Must Be Retained for 30 Years
The records I requested focused on family law cases, which California law requires courts to preserve for at least 30 years.
Specifically:
Government Code § 68152(c)(7) mandates a minimum 30-year retention period for family law case records, including assignment logs, docket information, and rulings.
California Rule of Court 10.855 and Orange County’s own local retention schedule (L-1018) confirm these obligations.
Despite these clear requirements, OCSC repeatedly told me it only maintains records for six years.
That claim was false.
Courts must retain family law judicial administrative records for three decades—not six years.
OCSC’s statements about retention reveal either a serious misunderstanding of the law or an effort to obstruct public oversight.
Part II: The Public’s Right to Know
The First Amendment, California law, and decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirm the public’s right to access court records.
In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. (1978), the Court recognized the public’s right to inspect judicial records.
In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982), the Court ruled that any effort to restrict court access must survive strict scrutiny.
California Rule of Court 10.500 reinforces this principle, requiring courts to disclose judicial administrative records unless a narrow exemption applies.
Transparency is not optional; it is fundamental to a democratic justice system.
Part III: Public Records — In the Courthouse, But Not for the Press
OCSC's contradictions grew worse when I discovered that courthouse computer terminals openly offer the very information it refused to produce electronically.
Inside Orange County courthouses, any member of the public can:
Search cases assigned to specific judges,
Search by lawyer, minors’ counsel, or custody evaluator,
View judicial calendars listing case numbers and party names.
Despite this public access, OCSC insisted that retrieving the same information electronically would be "unduly burdensome" unless I paid $4,240.40.
OCSC willingly provides public access at courthouse kiosks but obstructs journalists requesting the same records in electronic format—records that also serve to authenticate and verify information directly from the court's own systems.
Courts cannot condition public access based on format. Under both California law and First Amendment protections, they cannot discriminate between in-person access and electronic requests.
Part IV: Targeting a Journalist for Asking Questions
Instead of engaging with the substance of my requests, OCSC shifted to targeting me personally.
John McCoy, General Counsel for OCSC, attacked my status as a journalist.
He:
Claimed I was not a "legitimate journalist,"
Labeled my investigative platform a “blog” created to support litigation,
Questioned whether I sought records for profit,
And suggested that because I have personal experience in family court, I should not cover similar cases.
McCoy’s attacks violate the First Amendment, which protects all journalists, regardless of platform.
The Ninth Circuit confirmed this principle in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox (2014), holding that bloggers, freelancers, and independent reporters deserve the same constitutional protections as mainstream media outlets.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that public records belong to the people—not to government agencies seeking to shield themselves from scrutiny.
Part V: Inflated Costs and the Weaponization of Fees
After months of delay and deflection, OCSC attempted to deter access by demanding $4,240.40 for a single public record.
OCSC refused to provide an itemized breakdown explaining the fee.
It did not cite any valid exemption under Rule 10.500 or California case law.
California courts have rejected similar attempts to inflate costs and create financial barriers to public access. In cases like Getz v. Superior Court (2021), CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Superior Court (2001), and Weaver v. Superior Court (2014), courts ruled that agencies must extract existing electronic data without burdening requesters with unlawful fees.
OCSC’s fee demand appears less about recovering costs—and more about discouraging scrutiny.
Part VI: Improper Searches and Retaliatory Behavior
OCSC's retaliation escalated when court staff searched my name within civil case databases after I filed my public records requests.
They did not notify me.
They offered no legal justification.
They provided no policy permitting such searches.
This conduct raises grave ethical and constitutional concerns:
Retaliating against a journalist seeking public records,
Violating privacy protections,
And chilling constitutionally protected speech and access rights.
No requester should be subjected to internal surveillance simply for asking lawful questions about public institutions.
Part VII: Why This Matters
Orange County’s family courts hold life-altering power over parents and children.
Judges decide custody, safety, and futures in these courtrooms—often without meaningful public oversight.
When courts block journalists from accessing judicial administrative records, they violate not only legal transparency rules but also public trust.
If courts fear sunlight, the public must ask what they are hiding.
Conclusion
After nearly a year of obstruction, inflated fees, personal attacks, and unconstitutional retaliation, one truth stands out:
OC Superior Court is afraid to release these records.
I will continue pressing forward.
Transparency is not negotiable.
The truth demands it.
Some of my Independent coverage of Orange County, California family law cases can be found here:
Judged, Gagged, Separated, Silenced: The Taran Nolan Case
Injustice in OC: mom of tar's road to recovery faces unjust & prolonged separation from her kids
Update: “Tar’s Road to Recovery” Mom Bullied by OC Minors’ Counsel in Fight Over Special Needs Trust
Orange County Judges Block Public and Media from Court Hearings
Weaponized Gag Orders: How an OC Judge Is Silencing a Quadriplegic Mother’s Fight for Justice
OCDA Ignores Good Cause Law, Family Court Violates Due Process in Tawny Minna Grossman Case
Judicial Misconduct in OC? Judge’s Threats Against Mother Over Media Coverage Become Reality
OC Man Charged with 5 Felony Counts of Molestation: Family Court and CPS Ignored Reports for Years
The victims of Jessica St. Clair, part three
California Judges: The Good, the Bad, and the… San Joaquin County, Part Two
Great article. Thank you for being a voice for so many being victimized by the so-called justice system. It's sad when the courts financially abuse people who seek justice... whether it is outlandish fees or threats of sanctions for trying to protect your children.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE — another example added to the growing mountain of EVIDENCE showing how Family Courts profit from deliberate, intentional delays.