Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
2. Litigation costs in the amount of $10,108, the full amount sought.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $9,000, per the administrator’s declaration.
4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors set forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.
5. Payment to the LWDA of $13,000, per the parties’ PAGA allocation.
Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a final report on or before February 26, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary. 8 Rodriguez vs. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
2026-01576349
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s motion to seal the exhibits to his complaint (or portions of those exhibits) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion and the Court will consider sealing portions of his medical records detailing “reproductive health treatment and surgery” provided (1) he supplies the Court with the specific pages of the Complaint’s exhibits for which he seeks sealing, and (2) he provides the proposed redactions on those pages. Notwithstanding any approved sealing, Plaintiff must serve the entire unredacted complaint (including unredacted exhibits) on any defendant he serves in this case.
A court may order a record to be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts establishing: 1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; 2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record; 3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In the abstract, the Court would agree. But Plaintiff himself filed the complaint and exhibits, and he did so in the public record rather than seeking to do so under seal. Nothing in the record— including the declaration in support of this motion—states that Plaintiff publicly filed the documents by mistake. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff filed this case in propria persona and may not have realized the effect of publicly filing the exhibits. But a party who proceeds in pro per is held to the same rules as an attorney, and he or she is entitled to no greater consideration than represented litigants. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) Accordingly, the motion is denied. 9 Roe 1 O.B. vs. Anaheim Union High School District
2024-01439626
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production Plaintiffs John Roe 1 O.B. et al. move for an order compelling the Orange County District Attorney (“OCDA”) to comply with a deposition subpoena for production of business records served on March 9, 2026. The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion as set forth below.
GROUNDS FOR RULING On March 9, 2026, Plaintiffs served a document subpoena on OCDA, with a return date of April 7. (Gures Decl. (included in ROA 117) Ex. 1.) In effect, the subpoena seeks all documents in OCDA’s possession, custody, or control relating to David Bruce, who allegedly sexually abused Plaintiffs during Bruce’s career as a teacher for the Anaheim Unified School District.
On March 26, 2026, OCDA served objections by letter. (Gures Decl. Ex. 2.) It argued Plaintiffs had previously served a nearly identical subpoena, that OCDA had objected to the prior subpoena, and the time to move to compel compliance with the prior subpoena had long since passed. It further argued the failure to move to compel couldn’t be cured by serving a second, identical subpoena.
On May 20, 2026, Plaintiffs sent a meet-and-confer letter to OCDA. (Gures Decl. Ex. 3.) No response from OCDA is in the record.
CCP § 1987.1 allows a party who serves a subpoena for production of documents to move for an order compelling the witness to comply. A party moving to compel production of documents sought in a deposition notice must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production.” (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) If good cause is shown, then the objecting deponent bears the burden of justifying its objections. (See Weil et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:814.)
Plaintiffs have established good cause for production. In the current lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to hold AUSD liable for its alleged negligent supervision of Bruce. OCDA’s records regarding the investigation of Bruce and his subsequent prosecution likely contain information bearing not only on Bruce’s acts, but also on issues of whether AUSD was on notice of allegations against him, the extent of its supervision of Bruce, institutional responses to allegations against him, etc. The records may also contain witness information that can assist Plaintiffs in developing their case.