This opinion is a perfect example of the Streisand effect. A result generated in part, ironically enough, by someone who has written about the Streisand effect.
Lawrence Marino initially obtained an 18-month civil harassment restraining order against Mark Rayant at a proceeding at which Mr. Rayant was not present. Later, Mr. Rayant appeared in court and argued that he had never received notice of the proceedings, and on that basis, the court vacated the restraining order.
Mr. Rayant subsequently asked the trial court to seal the records of the proceeding, arguing that the public existence of the (now vacated) order harmed his ability to get certain jobs. The trial court refused to do so, and Mr. Rayant appealed.
Before the appeal, the only people who could view the proceedings below were those who went through the specific and somewhat arduous process of looking through trial court proceedings. But the appeal now results in a written opinion -- one that's a robust twenty five pages, and includes a slew of detailed facts about the underlying events -- that's easily accessible to pretty much everyone. Indeed, when you now run a Google search for "Mark Rayant," the opinion is one of the very first results that comes up.
Hence the Streisand effect. An attempt to reduce publicity and access that only increases it.
And here's the twist. The opinion was originally unpublished. That's bad for Mr. Rayant, since even unpublished opinions are still readily accessible. But the Court of Appeal now decides to publish the opinion, which only makes it even more readily accessible.
Who asked the Court of Appeal to publish the opinion? Not Mr. Rayant, who both lost the appeal and who has little reason to want its factual recitation of events to be even more public.
Rather, publication was instead requested by Eugene Volokh. Someone who's previously written about the Streisand effect.
Irony indeed.