CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

26CV174875: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 08/18/2026 Ex-Parte Proceedings in Department 25

Tentative Ruling - 08/18/2026 Jenna Whitman

The Court is in receipt of two requests to seal documents. One, filed by CDE, seeks solely to seal information that would disclose the identities of students, including those involved in the underlying Uniform Complaints. FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) clearly requires redaction of such information (including, e.g., the identity of involved parents). Thus, the Court will permit redaction of student identities and information that would lead to the disclosure of student identities (incl. parents names) without the showing otherwise required under the California Rules of Court, rule 2.550. The Court will grant CDE’s application re sealing filed on 8/4/2026 and approve the related stipulation filed the same date.

However, amici OJA and Marleen Sacks (“Amici”) have filed their own application to redact and seal additional information in the same and subsequent filings. Specifically, they seek to seal information that would identify non-students (e.g., persons who are OUSD employees, complainants, witnesses, etc.) To avoid duplicative work for the parties and clerk’s office, the Court will address these applications together.

The Court agrees that the names of involved individuals are almost certainly not relevant to merits of the instant writ petition, which concerns whether OUSD has complied with CDE’s “corrective actions” in certain appeal rulings. The documents at issue were not redacted prior to filing, and are now part of the official record of this case. As such, Amici must demonstrate either that the identities of these non-student persons involved in various Uniform Complaints are “required to be kept confidential by law” and exempt from Rule of Court 2.550, or make the showings required by CRC 2.550(d) and otherwise comply with Rules 2.550 and 2.551.

The parties to this action (OUSD and CDE) does not oppose sealing. However, “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) “ A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Id., rule 2.551, subd. (a).)

First, Amici argue that the identities of non-students involved in the events giving rise to the Uniform Complaints are required to be kept confidential by law and, as such, compliance with Rule 2.550 is not required. They rely upon 5 California Code of Regulations § 4630, subd. (c)(2); OUSD’s administrative regulations; and OUSD’s board policies. Amici also cite to exemptions in the Public Records Act, and custom and practice in appeals to the CDE.

Section 4630(c)(2) requires that the investigation of a discrimination, harassment, intimidation or bullying complaint to be “conducted in a manner that protects confidentiality of the parties and maintains the integrity of the process.” By its terms, this provision governs the conduct of the investigation. It does not make any express provision for protecting the confidentiality of the 26CV174875: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 08/18/2026 Ex-Parte Proceedings in Department 25 parties after the investigation is complete. E.g., it does not address whether a complainant or other individual may be named in the investigation report.

Moreover, another provision in these same procedures provides that local educational agency policies must "ensure that the identity of a complainant alleging discrimination, harassment, intimidation or bullying remain confidential as appropriate." (5 Cal. Code Regs. § 4621 (a), emphasis added.) This suggests that, in appropriate circumstances, the identity of the complainant may be disclosed. It does not suggest that the names of other involved persons are confidential. This undercuts any suggestion that the regulations prohibit public disclosure of the identities of involved persons, particularly after investigation report has issued.

OUSD’s administrative regulations (Sacks Decl, Ex. 3) require that the District Compliance officer interview alleged victim(s), offenders, and relevant witnesses “in a confidential manner. As necessary, additional staff or legal counsel may conduct or support the investigation.” (Ex. 3, page 9.) This governs the conduct of the investigation, echoing section 4360(c)(2), and strengthens the confidentiality and integrity of the investigation process by limiting participants. Notably, at page 8, OUSD’s administrative regulations also state: “When the complainant of unlawful discrimination, (harassment, intimidation or bullying) or the alleged victim, when not the complainant, requests confidentiality, the compliance officer shall inform the complainant that the request may limit the district's ability to investigate the conduct or take other necessary action.

When honoring a request for confidentiality, the district will nevertheless take all reasonable steps to investigate and resolve/respond to the complaint consistent with the request.” This also suggests the District has some discretion as to whether to honor a request for confidentiality (which in any event may or may not extend beyond the Uniform Complaint stage).

The section of OUSD’s regulations concerning the investigation report (p. 10) provides that the report shall be sent to complainant and respondent, and under appropriate circumstances, to a victim who is not the complainant and/or other involved parties, “as long as the privacy of the parties is protected.” While it acknowledges a privacy interest, it does not elaborate on what it means to protect the privacy of the parties or mandate confidentiality of the identity of parties. Again, it would appear the District enjoys some discretion in handling the investigation report. Moreover, this provision places no restrictions on the complainant and respondent’s use of the Investigation report.

These procedures also acknowledge a complainant’s right to pursue available civil law remedies outside of the district’s complaint procedures, provided 60 calendar days have elapsed from the filing of an appeal with the CDE. Notably, they impose no restrictions on the disclosure of involved persons’ identities, or the use of related records, in civil proceedings.

The District’s Board Policy (Sacks Decl., Ex. 2) requires the District to protect complainants from retaliation, and to protect the confidentiality of the “parties involved” “as required by law.” This is not an independent creation of confidentiality. It appears to reiterate the requirements of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV174875: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 08/18/2026 Ex-Parte Proceedings in Department 25 5 Cal. Code Regulations sections 4621 and 4630 (requiring the Superintendent to maintain confidentiality as to the identity of the complainant “when appropriate and as long as the integrity of the complaint process is maintained.”)

Amici also rely upon OUSD’s Uniform Complaint form, which states that the District shall protect all complainants from retaliation and “the confidentiality of the parties involved shall be protected as required by law.” This form does not independently impose any confidentiality requirement.

Amici also cite the Public Records Act and its exemptions from public disclosure personnel and other types of private records, “the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (Gov. Code, § 7927.700.) Note, however, that this provision is subject to exceptions, and in any event requires a determination that disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (Id.) More generally, an agency wishing to establish the catch-all exemption would be required to show, “on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” (Gov. Code, § 7922.000.) These provisions involve the weighing of case-specific facts and the exercise of some judgment or discretion; they do not mandate confidentiality without condition.

The foregoing regulations are unlike those which have been interpreted to mandate confidentiality and to preclude public disclosure of certain records or information in court proceedings, such that compliance with CRC 2.550 is not required. Such information would include juvenile court records (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827), juvenile police records (id., § 827.9), juvenile immigration status (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 831, 827, Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.130 and 5.551), adoption proceedings (Family Code, § 9200, 9201, Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 5.730), records for voluntary or involuntary treatment of mental health disorders or developmental disabilities (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5328 (although note that some documents may be disclosed “to the courts, as necessary to the administration of justice”), § 4514), social security numbers (Civ. Code, § 1798.5, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.1201), financial account numbers (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.201(a)(2), which only requires partial redaction), income tax returns (Rev. & Tax.

Code, § 19542), child custody investigations and recommending counselor reports (Family Code, § 3025.5).

As far as the Court can tell, then, to seal these court records, Amici must satisfy California Rules of Court 2.550-2.551. That includes, inter alia, a showing an “overriding interest” that overcomes the right of public access to the record; which interest supports sealing the record; and a substantial probability the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

In the context of this case, where the identities of the persons sought to be protected are not relevant to the instant dispute, and Attorney Sacks has demonstrated that these persons (or worse, their children) have suffered or are likely to suffer retaliation in the workplace if their identities

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV174875: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 08/18/2026 Ex-Parte Proceedings in Department 25 are disclosed, the Court has no trouble finding such interests override the public’s interest in the information sought to be sealed. However, Amici’s proposed order does not comply with rule 2.550(d) and (e), including making each of the required findings, supported by specific facts from Sacks’ declaration. Amici should promptly submit a proposed order that complies with these Rules of Court.

Further, the parties and Amici should take note that any grant of this application should not be considered an indication the merit of any similar requests in the related, OJA action, which involves different issues that could, depending upon the facts in issue, affect the relevancy analysis and/or the weighing of competing interests under CRC 2.550. To the extent the parties agree that information is irrelevant to the merits of the case and need not be considered by the Court in making any merits determination, it should be redacted by stipulation, before filing, so that it is not part of the official court record.

The Ex Parte Application Ex Parte App for Order Replacing Public Filing filed by California Department of Education on 08/04/2026 and Motion to Seal Amici Oakland Jewish Alliance and Marleen L. Sack's Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal Certain Portions of Documents Within the Declarations of Bradley Allen in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief filed by OAKLAND JEWISH ALLIANCE, MARLEEN L. SACKS on 08/05/2026 are Granted.

The Court sets a nonappearance compliance date for submission of a revised proposed order.

Compliance Hearing proposed order re: sealing is scheduled for 08/20/2026 at 04:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.