Sayma Sultana vs Jamuna-CA Inc et al

Systems, LLC (Northrop), on June 10, 2025, in this action, seeking six years of Michael's detailed employment, compensation, W-2s, payroll, personnel, and benefits records. After obtaining the records, OHH disclosed them to counsel for UC Regents in a separate administrative proceeding for the purpose of offsetting Michael's back pay award. Administrative counsel that received the records is not counsel of record in this action and is not among those authorized recipients of protected materials under the protective order.

UC Regents does not deny that it subpoenaed the employment records or that it disclosed them to counsel in the administrative proceeding. Rather, UC Regents argues that the records were not, and are not, protected materials under the protective order because the Littles did not designate them as confidential and allowed the production to occur without objection. The court agrees.

As noted above, the subject records were subpoenaed on June 10, 2025. (Orozco decl., P. 9 & Exh. 4.) The subpoena was served, via email, on plaintiff's counsel at darren@dre.law. (Orozco decl., P. 10 & Exh. 5.) In response to the electronic service of the subpoena, UC Regents' counsel received an auto-reply message from plaintiffs' counsel stating that the email had been delivered but that plaintiffs' counsel was out of the office and would return on June 25, 2025. (Orozco decl., P. 11 & Exh. 6.)

By way of declaration, plaintiffs' counsel denies receiving the subpoena because, among other reasons, his correct email address is darren@drelaw.com. (Richie decl., P. 6.) The declaration is clearly a misrepresentation. The motion itself, as well as other filings and correspondence to defense counsel, lists the correct email address as darren@dre.law. By way of reply, plaintiffs' counsel fails to explain or correct his misrepresentation. The subpoena was served and plaintiffs' counsel failed to act on it.

Plaintiffs' counsel, like all California attorneys, has an affirmative obligation to not only refrain from making false representations to the court, but also to affirmatively correct any misrepresentation. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6068; Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3.3; Levine v. Berschneider (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 916, 921.) The court will decline to issue an order to show cause as to why plaintiffs' counsel should not be sanctioned, at this time, but counsel is reminded of their strict ethical obligations as an officer of the court.

Plaintiffs attempt to place blame on counsel for UC Regents for their own failure to act and to impose duties on counsel for UC Regents that do not exist. It was incumbent upon plaintiffs' counsel to ensure that the documents were properly designated as "confidential." They simply failed to do so for nearly a year. Because they failed to do so, the documents were never subject to the protective order. Because there is no evidence that UC Regents or their counsel violated any provision of the protective order, the motion will be denied.

Tentative Ruling: Sayma Sultana vs Jamuna-CA Inc et al Tentative Ruling: Sayma Sultana vs Jamuna-CA Inc et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/07/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel Tentative Ruling On February 26, 2026, attorney Albert Chang and Law Offices of Albert Chang, filed these motions to be relieved as counsel for defendants Lokman Babu and Jamuna-CA, Inc. Good cause appearing, these motions are both granted. The orders granting relief are effective upon the filing of proofs of service on the respective clients of the signed orders.

Tentative Ruling: Rosa Munoz Hurtado et al vs Attilio Macrito, DO et al