Johnston vs. The Regents of the University of California

3. 30-2025- Before the Court is a Motion to Clarify and/or Modify 01494202-CU- Minute Order. ROA 114. CR-CJC Johnston vs. The On May 15, 2026, Plaintiff Angelea Johnston (“Plaintiff”) Regents of the filed the instant Motion to Clarify and/or Modify Minute University of Order. ROA 114. California On June 25, 2026, Defendant The Regents of The University of California (“Defendant University”) and Defendant Dr. Deepti Pandita (“Defendant Pandita”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. ROA 121.

Plaintiff request that the Court “issue a clarifying order, or a modified Minute Order, confirming whether its April 29, 2026, Minute Order was intended to include a limitation restricting the subpoenas to neurological records, or whether the omission of that limitation was intentional.” ROA 106.

Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety. ROA 121.

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not seek relief in the form of reconsideration under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. ROA 106.

I. Motion to Clarify and/or Modify Minute Order

Plaintiffs request relief under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(3), which states that every court shall have the power to do, among other things, provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §128(a)(3).

Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(d) allows the Court upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order. Cal. Civ Proc. Code §473(d).

The Court’s April 29, 2026, Minute Order provides as follows:

[t]he parties stipulate, and the Court orders, that the LASC Model Protective Order will be modified to include an elevated AEO designation governing the treatment of confidential information produced in this action, including by third parties; (2) Motions to Quash will be GRANTED and DENIED IN PART. The Court orders the subpoenas to be limited to a ten year temporal scope, inclusive of January 1, 2016, to present. Moreover, the Court orders no "first look" opportunity given to plaintiff. All records to be produced to all parties with appropriate confidentiality designations contemporaneously.

ROA 101.

The Court finds that the Order accurately reflects the Court's intended ruling. There is no clerical error, omission, or ambiguity warranting clarification or modification under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 128(a)(3) or 473(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify or Clarify is DENIED.

4. 30-2022- Before the Court are the following four (4) motions brought 01262979-CU- by Plaintiff Paris Patel (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant OE-CJC Amanda Rafi (“Defendant”): a Motion to Compel Further Patel vs. Amanda Responses to Form Interrogatories (“MF-FROG”), Set Rafi, DMD, A Three, and Sanctions (ROA 421); a Motion to Compel Professional Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“MF-SROG”), Dental Set Four, and Sanctions (ROA 423); a Motion to Compel Corporation Further Responses to Requests for Admission (“MF-RFA”), Set Three, and Sanctions (ROA 425); and a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (“MF-RFP”), Set Five, and Sanctions (ROA 426).

The underlying controversy involves claims of breach of contract, breach of good faith, labor code violations, retaliation, unfair business practices, and cross-complaints of misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and breach of oral contract. ROAs 2, 290. Plaintiff was employed