EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION vs TAO, et al.

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

25CV028099: EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION vs TAO, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Complaint 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. ***

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact all other parties and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing, along with the new address for this department. If moving counsel is unable to contact all other parties prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Defendant Tao’s “Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal” filed on 2/4/2026, as well as other documents filed by defendant on the same date, fail to comply with California Rules of Court ("CRC"), rule 3.1110(b)(1) and (3)-(4). The Court notes that Defendant also submitted additional filings on 6/12/2026, a mere two court days prior to this hearing. Defendant's filings made on 6/12/2026 were not considered by this Court as they were significantly untimely and prohibited under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), which requires all opposition papers to be filed no later than nine (9) court days prior to the hearing date. For any future filings, Defendant is advised that it must comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court.

Plaintiff East Bay Community Law Center’s (“EBCLC”) motion to seal is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Plaintiff EBCLC commenced this action on 11/20/2025, filing a complaint against the two named defendants in an attempt to set aside an allegedly fraudulent transfer of property located

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028099: EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION vs TAO, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Complaint in Department 16D

in this county. According to the complaint, defendant Tao previously prosecuted an unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court which resulted in the entry of a judgment against her, which judgment included a sizeable award of attorney fees that was subsequently assigned to plaintiff EBCLC. Because the attorney fees remain unpaid, plaintiff EBCLC now seeks to set aside defendant Tao’s allegedly fraudulent transfer of property located in this county to her son, defendant Liu.

Moving Papers. Citing the statutes limiting access to and disclosure of the records of unlawful detainer actions (see, Code Civ. Proc. §1161.2 et seq.), plaintiff EBCLC moves to seal those portions of its complaint and the present motion which refer to non-public information relating to the prior unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court.

Opposition. Defendant in pro per Tao filed on 2/4/2026 a “Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal” but the second paragraph of this declaration indicates it is filed “in support of my Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.” (The Court’s Register of Actions currently reflects no actual demurrer or actual motion to dismiss being filed by defendant Tao and no hearing date set for such motions. It does appear that defendant Tao filed on 2/4/2026 both a declaration and memorandum of points & authorities in support of a demurrer and motion to dismiss but again, no actual demurrer or motion to dismiss by defendant Tao is on file.

Codefendant Liu does currently have a demurrer now set for hearing on 11/17/2026.) In any event, Defendant Tao’s “Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal” first proceeds to summarize her contentions in the underlying unlawful detainer action; characterizes the resulting judgment and attorney fee award as “disputed” and the subject of appellate proceedings in the First District Court of Appeal; and raises questions about plaintiff EBCLC’s service of certain papers (Tao Decl., ¶¶3-12), before asserting that the “broad sealing in this Sacramento action would reduce transparency and would increase confusion and burden, particularly where multiple versions and cover-sheet markings have already complicated basic tracking of what has been served (Id., at ¶13).

More specifically, defendant Tao requests that “[i]f the Court is inclined to grant any sealing, the Court deny any request to seal the entire case or to broadly restrict public access, and instead require the narrowest possible redactions limited to specific information that meets the legal standard” (although defendant Tao fails to identify any information which is claimed to not “meet the legal standard” for sealing). (Id., at ¶14).

Standards for Sealing Court Records

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC Rule 2.550(c).) However, the Court may order that a record be filed under seal if it expressly finds facts that establish that there is an overriding interest to support the sealing of these records; there is a substantial probability that the parties’ interests will be prejudiced absent sealing; the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the parties’ interests; and there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. (CRC Rule 2.550(d); see also, In re Providian Credit

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028099: EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION vs TAO, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Complaint in Department 16D

Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292.)

Discussion

As noted above, plaintiff EBCLC now moves to seal those portions of its complaint and the present motion which refer to information relating to the prior unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court which is not subject to public disclosure under Code of Civil Procedure §1161.2 et seq.

To the extent defendant Tao’s “Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal” appears to argue that the underlying judgment rendered by the Alameda County Superior Court and/or attorney fee award is “disputed” and/or not final due to ongoing appellate proceedings, it is not relevant to the disposition of the present motion. Defendant Tao’s additional claims that “broad sealing in this Sacramento action would reduce transparency and would increase confusion and burden” are largely inapposite insofar as plaintiff EBCLC does not seek any “broad sealing in this Sacramento action” but rather seeks only to prevent the public disclosure of certain information relating to the earlier unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court consistent with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1161.2 et seq.

Notably, defendant Tao’s “Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal” fails to identify any specific information proposed to be sealed that does not otherwise “meet the legal standard” for sealing but instead, merely requests in a generic fashion that the redaction of the complaint and moving papers be limited to the “narrowest” degree permitted by law. (See, Tao Decl., ¶¶13-14.)

Finding that (1) plaintiff EBCLC’s proposed sealing of its complaint and the moving papers here is limited to that certain information relating to the earlier unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court in conformity with the letter and spirit of the non-disclosure provisions found in Code of Civil Procedure §1161.2 et seq.; (2) defendant Tao has failed to identify any particular information proposed to be sealed which does not otherwise meet the legal standard for sealing; and (3) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interests identified by the legislature in enacting Code of Civil Procedure §1161.2 et seq., this Court concludes there is good cause to grant the relief sought by the present motion.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff EBCLC’s motion to seal is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to file (backdated to 11/20/2025) the unredacted version of the complaint previously lodged by plaintiff EBCLC and (backdated to 11/24/2025) the unredacted version of the present motion to seal (consisting of two separate documents (i.e., Notice of Motion and Memo. P&A; Declaration of Nicholas A. Ickovic) previously lodged by plaintiff EBCLC, and to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028099: EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION vs TAO, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Complaint in Department 16D

immediately set the security clearance on these unredacted documents so that they may not be accessed by the public.

The redacted versions of the both the complaint previously filed on 11/20/2025 and the moving papers previously filed on 11/24/2025 shall remain accessible by the public.

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