MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC

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 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 be 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. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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****

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Redact Exhibit C in Department 8C

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Melissa Maruschak’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to redact is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This is an employment action between Plaintiff and Defendant Doo Doo Squad, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant moved to compel the action to arbitration on March 10, 2026. Plaintiff opposed the motion. On April 6, 2026, the Court ordered arbitration and stayed this action.[1] In opposing the motion, Plaintiff filed a Declaration of Stephen Sommers. Exhibit C to that Declaration contains the unredacted social security number, home address, home phone number, email address, driver’s license number and other personally identifying information of a non-party to this action.

Plaintiff now moves to redact the personally identifying information of the non-party. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that filing the unredacted information was an oversight and that the information was not necessary to establishing any evidentiary point. (Sommers Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has submitted a proposed redacted document for filing.

“To protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests, parties and their attorneys must not include, or must redact where inclusion is necessary,” social security numbers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.201.) As Plaintiff acknowledges, no person’s unredacted social security should be filed in public court records.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, the Court finds that the non-party’s home address, home phone number, email address, driver’s license number and other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Redact Exhibit C in Department 8C

personally identifying information are private personally identifying information. The nonparty did not consent to disclosure and the information has no relevance to the dispute. Public release of this information would serve little or no public purpose. The Court finds that the privacy interest in this information overcomes the right of public access to the information, the privacy interest supports sealing, there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced without sealing, the sealing is narrowly tailored, and there is no less restrictive means to achieve the privacy interest.

Plaintiff is directed to refile the entire Declaration of Stephen Sommers In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration with an Exhibit C appropriately redacted according to this order. Plaintiff shall provide the clerk a copy of this order when the papers are refiled.

The clerk is directed to promptly change the security clearance and remove from public view the “Declaration of Stephen Sommers In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration” filed by Plaintiff on May 24, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The purpose of a stay for arbitration is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by

preserving the status quo. (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 646.) After ordering a stay, the trial court has limited jurisdiction “over matters submitted to arbitration.” (Id. at 658–659.) The Court finds that administrative maintenance of court records is not among the matters submitted to arbitration, nor will the requested redaction affect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Court has retained jurisdiction to hear this issue.