Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

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.

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 04/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection of Def's Premises in Department 16D

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

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. 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. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion to compel site inspection of Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s premises is granted.

In this employment action, Plaintiff alleges FEHA based causes of action, including for religious and national origin discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a family physician at CSP-Sacramento (CSP-SAC). Plaintiff alleges that he raised concerns regarding safety and that as a result, Defendant assigned him to more dangerous areas of the prison. Plaintiff was later diagnosed with bladder cancer and had been approved for leave. Prior to the leave, he reported to the Office of Inspector General that his supervisors were falsifying patient care data. Days later, Defendant rescinded his leave and later terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff served a Notice of Site Inspection on Defendant’s former counsel indicated that Plaintiff sought to inspect certain areas of CSP-SAC where Plaintiff worked during his employment. Over the following months, Plaintiff and Defendant’s new counsel met and conferred with respect to the site inspection. In November 2025, Defendant’s counsel indicated agreement to the site inspection in addition to a proposed protective order. (Thrasher Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6; Exhs. B, C.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant’s counsel withdrew from the agreement. (Id. ¶ 6.) On January 22, 2026, Defendant’s counsel sent a revised draft protective order which contained a provision that any party challenging a confidential designation would be required to file a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 04/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection of Def's Premises in Department 16D

motion with the Court. (Id. ¶ 7; Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that under the previous version of the draft protective order the burden to file the motion was on the party designating the matter as confidential. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel stated that they would not change their position and would no longer negotiate the terms of any protective order. The instant motion followed.

Pursuant to CCP § 2031.010(d) a party may demand “to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” (CCP § 2031.010(d).) Whether to permit a site inspection is a matter within the Court’s discretion. (Trust v. Arden Farms Co. (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 217, 225.)

Defendant first opposes the motion on the basis that the site inspection threatens the privacy interests of inmates and staff in the medical and housing facilities as CSP-SAC. Defendant contends that a site inspection “cannot be performed without disrupting the active and ongoing medical treatment of prisoners in the medical facilities. In addition, the inspection of medical staff offices would also disturb the contents of medical and personnel files contained in the office.” (Opp. 6:23-26.)

The right to privacy provided for in Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 may be invoked by a litigant as justification for refusal to answer questions or respond to requests for information that unreasonably intrude on that right. Importantly, a plaintiff asserting a privacy claim has the burden of establishing each element, specifically: 1. A legally protected privacy interest; 2. A reasonable expectation of privacy; and 3. A serious invasion of the privacy interest. (See, e.g. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37.) “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.

A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552.) “Courts must instead place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies, as Hill requires.” (Id. at 557.) “Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the requested site inspection is entirely precluded based upon the asserted privacy interest offered by Defendant. To that end, Defendant argues that the proposed site inspection “would

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 04/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection of Def's Premises in Department 16D

interfere with operations of the facilities and make for potential CMIA and HIPAA violations due to the requested areas for inspection. During the day, when the site inspection would occur, patients are being seen in these facilities. The site inspection occurring during operations leads to high risk of the privacy and confidentiality of patients being violated.” (Opp. 7:19-23 [emphasis added].) Defendant asserts that allowing a site inspection during working hours could result in shifts in appointments, potential halted working times, and a change in routine for staff and those living in the facilities. (Id. 7:24:28.)

As support for these assertions, Defendant submits a declaration from Dr. Manjula Bobbala, the Chief Medical Executive at CSP-SAC. Dr. Bobbala states that a site inspection involving photos or video risks capturing images of inmates that “could reveal” identity and custody status and that images taken in medical offices “could expose” private health information. (Bobbala Decl. ¶ 4.) Dr. Bobbala states that “[e]ven with safeguards, it is not feasible to ensure that all inmates would be excluded from view or that all medical information would remain out of frame during an on-site inspection in an operating medical environment.” (Id. ¶ 5.)

However, despite Dr. Bobbala’s blanket assertion that any safeguard would be inadequate, Defendant provides no detail regarding any particular proposed safeguards and why they would not be feasible in resolving or mitigating any arguable concerns. Dr. Bobbala also declares that shutting down or clearing medical offices to allow for an inspection would pause or disrupt patient care and that “[s]uch pause is not practicable and would be inconsistent with CDCR’s obligation to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to inmates.” (Id. ¶ 7.)

Again, however, despite this broad assertion which appears intended to imply that allowing the subject inspection (regardless of safeguards) would prevent or impede inmates’ constitutionally-protected access to medical care, Defendant offers no detail much less any showing as to why medical offices must be “shut down” or “cleared” for an inspection to occur and why the inspection could not be conducted at such times, or in such a manner so as not to interfere with any ongoing patient care and thereby avoid or mitigate any asserted disruption in constitutionally-protected medical care.

The Court finds that while Defendant has raised general concerns regarding the potential for privacy interests being implicated, it has not demonstrated that there will be a serious or obvious invasion of any such interest, or that these interests, to the extent that they may exist, can nevertheless be sufficiently accommodated. Defendant has not demonstrated that the perceived risks cannot be either eliminated or mitigated through protective measures regarding the subject inspection. There are many ways the parties can agree to eliminate or mitigate risks related to privacy. This may include, for example, a process by which Defendant may be allowed to assert privacy objections and the need for redaction of portions of photographs or recordings created from the inspection. In this regard, the Court is aware that Plaintiff’s proposed protective order

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 04/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection of Def's Premises in Department 16D

placed the burden on the party designating the information as confidential to file a motion to uphold the designation, and that after previously agreeing to the proposed order, Defendant reversed its position and proposed that the party challenging any confidential disclosure would file a motion. First, the Court notes that Defendant’s position is inconsistent with the law insofar as the party asserting the privacy claim has the burden of establishing each required element. (See, e.g. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37.)

To the extent the parties are unable to resolve a dispute over a privacy interest that Defendant insists applies to a particular photograph, recording or portion thereof, it is Defendant that would have the burden to establish the disputed privacy interest as to such specific content by way of a motion for protective order, or if made during trial, to exclude evidence. Second, Defendant makes no argument in its opposition as to why the protective order proposed by Plaintiff and initially agreed to by Defendant will not address any concerns raised by the site inspection.

Additionally, Plaintiff makes clear that he only seeks photography of structural features and is only interested in the physical layout, structure and operational environment of the facility. Moreover, there is no showing that the site inspection cannot in fact be conducted at a time and in a manner that will not interfere with any ongoing patient care. Thus, the Court will not deny the motion on the basis that privacy interests preclude the inspection. Indeed, as discussed below, Plaintiff’s need for the information outweighs any potential privacy interest.

Defendant also argues that the security of the prison weighs against the value of the site inspection. This is no basis to deny the motion. Defendant asserts that the inspection puts the facility and those who work and live there “at risk due to potential security breaches” because the inspection could reveal guard locations, security movements, and the layout of the facility. Defendant asserts that if this information fell into the wrong hands the security of the institution and the safety of staff could be placed at risk.

However, these hypothetical risks can be addressed, avoided and/or mitigated through the use of the protective order discussed above which limits use of the information to the instant litigation only and the scope of allowed disclosure. Indeed, Defendant concedes that “restriction[s] on who has access to the recorded material” are necessary. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that it has participated in two other CDCR facilities which were completed safely, effectively and without harm to institutional security.

Neither Plaintiff nor this Court has suggested that information obtained through the subject inspection should be freely disseminated to the public.

Defendant also contends that any site inspection has limited value because the areas where Plaintiff worked have undergone renovations. Defendant submits the declaration of CSP-SAC’s Warden who generally declares that the prison “has undergone recent renovations, modifications, and configurations to its medical facilities and surrounding

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 04/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection of Def's Premises in Department 16D

areas. These changes include alterations to room layouts, entrances and exits, equipment placement, and the function use of particular spaces.” (Schultz Decl. ¶ 5.) The Warden declares that the current configuration does not reflect the layout as it existed during the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 6.) This conclusory declaration does not show that the site inspection cannot lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to endure unsafe working conditions by being forced to work in dangerous areas.

In the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) Information regarding the physical layout of the areas where Plaintiff used to work easily meets this broad test of relevance for discovery purposes.

Plaintiff is not required to accept Defendant’s contention the areas at issue have been changed so that Plaintiff’s inspection is entirely moot.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to a site inspection of the limited areas of CSP-SAC that were identified in the demand for inspection. The site inspection is calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant has not sufficiently identified any serious invasion of any privacy interest, much less any privacy interest or security concern that cannot be accommodated through a protective order as described above.

As a result, the motion is granted conditioned on entry of a protective order to be agreed to by the parties. The Court notes that the protective order proposed by Plaintiff in the meet-and-confer process (and initially accepted by Defendant) appears appropriate and Defendant made no argument in opposition to this motion that it was not adequate. However, the parties shall meet and confer to finalize a protective order consistent with this order and submit the same for the Court’s signature.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied as it was not relevant to the Court’s ruling. Therefore, the Court need not rule on Defendant’s objection to the request for judicial notice.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.