M.T. is a transgender woman who was assigned male at birth but has presented as female since she was a minor. In 2017, when she was 19 years old, M.T. filed a petition in Stanislaus Superior Court to legally change her name and gender marker to align with her gender identity.
As part of her petition, M.T. included the required physician’s affidavit confirming she had undergone clinically appropriate treatment for gender transition. No objections were filed to her petition. In 2018, the trial court granted M.T.’s petition after she appeared at a hearing. The trial court issued a decree changing her name and gender using the standard Judicial Council form.
After this legal change, M.T. kept her transgender identity private. She did not disclose it at her workplace or school and only used her previous legal name when required by law.
In 2022, M.T. discovered that her case record was publicly available online when she searched for her current name. The online information included her private medical details, contact information, and former name. In 2023, M.T. was publicly “outed” on social media. A post was made with her photograph, disclosing her former name and referring to her using a derogatory term for transgender individuals. The post also revealed her current and former workplaces, home address, and phone number.
Following this incident, M.T. experienced repeated harassment by anonymous social media users. She received transphobic messages and had to shut down all her social media accounts due to cyberbullying and repeated publishing of her private information.
M.T.’s transgender identity was also anonymously disclosed to her workplace and school. This led to her employer’s human resources department contacting her, which made M.T. uncomfortable as she had not previously shared this information. As a result of these events, M.T. ultimately left her job.
In response to these experiences, M.T. filed an application in 2023 to seal the entire record of her name and gender correction, arguing that the public availability of this information had subjected her to discrimination, harassment, and violence.
The trial court partially granted M.T.’s request, sealing her application to seal, her supporting documentation, and a physician’s letter from her initial petition. However, the court denied sealing the entire record. M.T. appealed this decision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals evaluated whether the trial court improperly denied the request to seal M.T.’s entire record.
The Court of Appeals examined the case in light of the common law and First Amendment rights of public access to court records. It noted that while court records are generally public, this presumption of openness can be overcome if there’s an overriding interest that necessitates closure.
The court considered the factors outlined in California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d), which govern the sealing of court records. These factors include:
The Court of Appeals considered that the right to privacy is protected in the California Constitution. This right encompasses informational privacy, including an interest in limiting disclosure of confidential information about a bodily condition.
The Court of Appeals concluded that whether a transgender person’s gender identity conforms with their assigned sex at birth is intimate personal information entitled to protection under the right to privacy. A transgender person has a privacy interest in concealing their transgender identity.
The Court of Appeals determined that M.T. had demonstrated a substantial probability of prejudice if the record was not sealed, given the harassment and threats she experienced after her information was made public.
Finally, the Court found that sealing the entire record was narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. Partial sealing was insufficient to protect M.T.’s interests because the unsealed records necessarily revealed that M.T.’s gender marker was changed.
The Court of Appeals concluded that under the specific circumstances of this case, M.T. had made a sufficient showing that her records should be sealed pursuant to Rule 2.550(d). Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to seal all records that reveal M.T.’s name change or gender marker correction.
In re M.T. (Oct. 29, 2024) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 690].
Note: This decision shows that an individual’s right to privacy under the California Constitution can extend to keeping their gender identity private.