A.S. vs. County of Sacramento

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

34-2022-00324020-CU-PO-GDS: A.S. vs. County of Sacramento 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Juvenile Records Submitted in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Neither the original nor the amended notice of motion provides notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06. Instead, both the original and amended notices incorrectly refer to Local Rule 1.05 which by its own terms pertains only to those matters that are heard by the Presiding Judge in Department 47 (now designated as Department 17A), while Local Rule 1.06 specifically pertains only to those matters that are heard in this Court’s various law & motion departments. These two Local Rules are different, and the specific procedures under them are different, and the specific language required by them are also different. Moving counsel directed to review the Local Court Rules, effective 1/1/2026.

Moving counsel is also directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure under Local Rule 1.06 and the manner to request a hearing under Local Rule 1.06. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

The “caption” portion of the amended notice of motion to seal filed on 4/9/2026 fails to specify the correct hearing date for this matter, incorrectly indicating the hearing is set for 9/22/2026.

For unknown reasons, defendant not only filed on 3/25/2026 a partially redacted document labelled as “Exhibits A Through M in Support of Declaration of Jill B. Nathan in Support of Defendant County of Sacramento’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (which

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324020-CU-PO-GDS: A.S. vs. County of Sacramento 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Juvenile Records Submitted in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

includes language stating “Proposals for Sealing”) but also lodged on the same date an unredacted version of this same document despite the fact defendant had previously filed on 3/19/2026 a document identified as “Documentary Evidence in Support of Defendant County of Sacramento’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (having a fully redacted version of Exhibits A-M) (and thus, defendant should have also lodged simultaneously an identical but fully unredacted version of this “Documentary Evidence” document, the latter of which would be the actual document that defendant should now be seeking to seal via the present motion). Counsel is reminded that the Court is unable to “seal” anything less than the entirety of any document which is filed and as such, cannot “seal” just the various exhibits attached to the Nathan Declaration which declaration is itself found within the “Documentary Evidence” document that was previously filed in support of the pending motion for summary judgment.

Defendant’s motion to seal “Juvenile Records” submitted in support of its pending motion for summary judgment/adjudication is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant’s moving papers appear to seek to seal the entirety of the exhibits, identified in the moving papers as Exhibits A-M, offered as support for defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment/adjudication on the grounds they are part of plaintiff’s “Juvenile Court Records” and the Juvenile Court authorized access to such records subject to a requirement that those filed with the Court in this civil action be sealed.

At the outset, the Court notes that while this motion seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibits A-M offered as support for defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment/adjudication, both the moving points & authorities filed on 3/19/2026 and moving separate statement filed on 3/19/2026 in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication appear themselves to include portions of the contents of the aforementioned exhibits sought to be sealed. However, defendant has not redacted from these additional documents filed on 3/19/2026 any of the information apparently derived from the exhibits sought to be sealed.

It is unclear whether or not defendant believes that redaction of such information is necessary for defendant’s compliance with the Juvenile Court’s directive. In any event, to the extent defendant may now find that such information included in these additional documents filed on 3/19/2026 should also be sealed from public disclosure, defendant should promptly file and serve an appropriate motion to seal along with an appropriately redacted version of each of these documents.

Because Exhibits A-I and L-M that defendant has offered as support for its pending summary judgment/adjudication motion do appear to consist of plaintiff’s own “Juvenile Court Records” which defendant previously obtained from the Juvenile Court and do

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324020-CU-PO-GDS: A.S. vs. County of Sacramento 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Juvenile Records Submitted in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

warrant sealing under California law including Welfare and Institutions Code §827, this Court grants this motion to seal with respect to Exhibits A-I and L-M.

However, Exhibits J-K, which defendant’s motion to seal identifies as excerpts of two depositions taken on 5/20/2025 during the course of this civil litigation, do not appear to constitute any “Juvenile Court Records” which require or otherwise warrant sealing on the specific grounds advanced by this motion. Notably, despite this motion seeking by its own terms to seal the entirety of Exhibits A-M, the document which defendant filed on 3/25/2026 (labelled as “Exhibits A Through M in Support of Declaration of Jill B.

Nathan in Support of Defendant County of Sacramento’s Motion for Summary Judgment”) and which includes language stating “Proposals for Sealing,” seems to reflect defendant’s own concession that these two deposition transcripts found in Exhibits J-K do not warrant sealing insofar as defendant did not redact any portion of these two deposition transcripts from this 3/25/2026 filing. Accordingly, the present motion to seal is denied as to Exhibits J-K.

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to seal law is GRANTED as to Exhibits A-I and L-M but is DENIED as to Exhibits J-K

In light of the foregoing, defendant to promptly submit directly to the Clerk for this Department a completely unredacted but otherwise identical version of the document entitled “Documentary Evidence in Support of Defendant County of Sacramento’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication” which defendant previously filed on 3/19/2026 so that if it meets with the Court’s approval, the Clerk may file it (backdated to 3/19/2026) and immediately set the security clearance so as to preclude public access to this unredacted document.

Defendant also to promptly submit directly to the Clerk for this Department a “corrected” version of the document entitled “Documentary Evidence in Support of Defendant County of Sacramento’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication” previously filed on 3/19/2026 but which now permissibly redacts the entirety of Exhibits A-I and L-M but includes unredacted versions of Exhibits J-K (i.e., the excerpts of deposition transcripts which do not warrant sealing) so that if it meets with the Court’s approval, the Clerk may file it (backdated to 3/19/2026). This “corrected” redacted version will thereafter remain accessible by the public, with the protected Juvenile Court Records having been redacted.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324020-CU-PO-GDS: A.S. vs. County of Sacramento 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Juvenile Records Submitted in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)