Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al

Santa Barbara County - Judge Donna D. Geck - 20260607 Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling

(1) For all reasons herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication against plaintiff Michael Little is continued to June 12, 2026.

(2) For all reasons herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication against plaintiff Tiffany Little is continued to June 12, 2026.

(3) For all reasons herein, the court finds that The Regents of the University of California's February 4, 2026, notices of lodging are inadequate to support filing under seal the materials conditionally lodged under seal in support of these motions.

(4) For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 11, 2026, The Regents of the University of California may file and serve a motion, supported by a memorandum and declaration, that all or part of the materials conditionally lodged under seal in support of these motions for summary judgment should be filed under seal or filed openly; any such motion will be heard on May 29, 2026; any response or opposition shall be filed and served on or before May 18, 2026, and any reply on or before May 22, 2026; these materials shall remain conditionally lodged under seal pending the resolution of any such motion; if no such motion is filed on or before May 11, 2026, the court will permanently delete these materials from the court's records.

Background: On March 19, 2019, as to this action, Case No. 19CV01431, plaintiffs Michael Little (Michael) and Tiffany Little (Tiffany) jointly filed their complaint against defendants The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents), Dustin Olson (Olson), Cathy Farley (Farley), David Millard (Millard), Robert Romero (Romero), Gregory Pierce (Pierce), and Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky) for (1) Violation of California Whistleblower Protection Act, and (2) Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. (Note: As plaintiffs have the same surname, they will be referred to by their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.)

As alleged in the complaint: Olson, Farley, Millard, Romero, Pierce, and Smorodinsky are employees of University of California Police Department, Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD). (Compl., P.P. 4-9.) Michael has been employed by UC Regents from approximately March 2014 through the present and Tiffany has been employed by UC Regents from approximately November 2014 through the present. (Compl., P. 15.) Plaintiffs worked at UC Regents' location at University of California Santa Barbara Public Safety Building 574, Mesa Road, Goleta. (Id. at P. 16.) Plaintiffs were police officers working under managers and supervisors including Olson, Farley, Millard, Romero, Pierce, Smorodinsky, and Ryan Smith (Smith). (Compl., P. 17.)

In December 2015 and January 2016, Tiffany informed her direct supervisor, Smith, that a subordinate officer was spending an inexplicable amount of time in the UCSB freshman residence halls while on duty. (Compl., P. 18.) Tiffany reported the subordinate officer's suspicious behavior of turning off his radio and refusing to respond to calls for service or other officer's requests for assistance for multiple hours at a time, as this posed a public

On September 17, 2021, the court ordered that six actions pending in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Barbara be consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to department 4: Signa v. UC Regents, Case No. 18CV05728; Little v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV01431; Stern v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV04418; Reyes v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV02586; Smith v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV01625; and Hashimoto v. UC Regents, Case No. 21CV01256. The court designated the Signa v. UC Regents action (Case No. 18CV05728) as the lead case.

On September 9, 2022, the court entered a stipulated protective order (Protective Order) governing confidential materials exchanged during discovery, applicable to all of the matters consolidated for pretrial purposes. The Protective Order was executed by counsel for UC Regents and counsel for Michael and Tiffany, among other parties.

On August 8, 2025, the court held a trial confirmation conference wherein it was agreed that the matter Smith v. UC Regents, Case No. 19CV01625, would be set for trial on certain days from June 8 through June 17, 2026. As to the actions in which the plaintiffs are represented by the Dre Law Firm, including this action, Case No. 19CV01431, the parties agreed that these matters would be set for trial on certain days from June 18 through July 15, 2026, and might be subject to consolidation for trial. The court set these trial dates in consultation with counsel.

On January 26, 2026, UC Regents filed motions for summary judgment against Michael and Tiffany or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to each of the causes of action asserted by Michael and Tiffany. Michael and Tiffany oppose these motions.

Analysis: (1) Supporting Evidence Submitted by UC Regents Was Lodged Under Seal

UC Regents supports its motion against Michael with five declarations and an appendix of evidence consisting of seven volumes. The five declarations were filed openly on January 26, 2026. All seven volumes of the appendix were lodged under seal on January 26, although there was no indication in the January 26 filings that these documents were lodged under seal. On February 4, 2026, UC Regents filed and served a notice of lodging and an amended appendix indicating that the seven-volume appendix was lodged under seal pursuant to the court's Protective Order.

Similarly, UC Regents supports its motion against Tiffany with five declarations and an appendix of evidence consisting of seven volumes. The five declarations were filed openly on January 26, 2026. All seven volumes of the appendix were lodged under seal on January 26, although there was no indication in the January 26 filings that these documents were lodged under seal. On February 4, 2026, UC Regents filed and served a notice of lodging and an amended appendix indicating that the seven-volume appendix was lodged under seal pursuant to the court's Protective Order (collectively, the appendices lodged under seal on January 26 in support of UC Regents' motions for summary judgment against Michael and Tiffany are referred to herein as the Sealed Materials).

(2) Applicable Rules for Lodging and Filing Documents Under Seal

Pursuant to the Protective Order, "[w]here any protected materials are included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules." (Protective Order, p. 18, ll. 6-8.) Rules 2.550 and 2.551 expressly "apply to discovery materials that are ... submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).)

"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." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)

"A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)

"A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. Other parties must be served

heard on the sealing issues and UC Regents' motions for summary judgment, and also protects the public's First Amendment right of access to materials submitted as a basis for adjudication.

Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling

(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint is continued to May 29, 2026.

(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against Matthew Stern's complaint is continued to June 12, 2026.

(3) If appropriate motions for an order sealing material that has been lodged conditionally under seal by defendant as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication against the complaints of plaintiffs Ryan Smith and Mathew Stern are not filed and served by the deadline prescribed herein and in accordance with this ruling, that lodged material, which will not be considered by the court, will be permanently deleted.

(4) Any motion for an order to seal any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint and against plaintiff Matthew Stern's complaint, must be filed and served on or before May 11, 2026. The materials submitted by defendant as a basis for adjudication of those motions shall remain conditionally lodged pending the resolution of any such motion.

(5) The opening memorandum submitted in support of any future motion for an order to seal any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint must include the notification described in this ruling.

(6) Any opposition to any motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint must be filed and served on or before May 13, 2026. Any reply to that opposition must be filed and served on or before May 15, 2026.

(7) Any opposition to any future motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Matthew Stern's complaint must be filed and served on or before May 18, 2026. Any reply to that opposition must be filed and served on or before May 22, 2026.

(8) The hearing on any motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint that may be filed in this case, shall be set on May 22, 2026.

(9) The hearing on any motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against plaintiff Matthew Stern's complaint that may be filed in this case, shall be set on May 29, 2026.

Regents Reyes Motion. For example, court records reflect that the two volume appendix of exhibits submitted by the Regents in support of the Regents Signa Motion was lodged conditionally under seal on January 22, 2026. On February 25, 2026, the Regents lodged similar documents in regard to the amended appendix of evidence filed in support of that motion and of the Regents Reyes Motion, conditionally under seal. Though the Regents Signa Motion, the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion are calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026, to the extent any material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions has been lodged conditionally under seal, the court expects that appropriate motions to seal those materials will be filed sufficiently in advance of that hearing considering the May Order and the court's ruling herein.

Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/15/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling

(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motions of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Mark Signa's complaint (filed on January 22, 2026), and for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' complaint (filed on February 13, 2026), are each continued to June 5, 2026.

(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant Dustin Olson for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the first amended complaint of plaintiff Mark Signa is granted, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted against defendant Dustin Olson, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant David Millard for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Matthew Stern is granted, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 asserted against defendant David Millard, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(4) All parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss the procedural matters described herein.

Background: Plaintiff Mark Signa (Signa) filed their original complaint in this case against defendants The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD) Chief Dustin Olson (Olson) on November 21, 2018, asserting four causes of action: (1) violation of Title 42 United States Code section 1983 - denial of first amendment rights; (2) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. Briefly, in the complaint, Signa alleges that they have been employed as a police officer by the Regents since 1990, and that they were retaliated against after voicing concerns about purportedly illegal or improper conduct within the UCSB-PD.

On February 4, 2019, Signa filed their operative first amended complaint (the Signa FAC), alleging two causes of action: (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and (2) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5. On February 22, 2019, the Regents and Olson filed an answer to the Signa FAC, generally denying its

same reasoning and analysis apply.

(4) Procedural Matters

Court records reflect that, pursuant to the court's minute order dated September 17, 2021, this case (the Signa Action) is consolidated with the Little Action, the Stern Action, the Reyes Action, and the Smith Action, for pre-trial purposes only, with all documents to be separately filed in any case files to which they might relate. The court further ordered that, "[f]or the motions or other matters requiring hearings, the moving party is directed to include the following language below the document title: [P.] 'This matter is being calendared and heard in the lead case only. Cases are consolidated for pretrial and not all purposes.'" (Sept. 17, 2021, Minute Order.)

The court's minute order dated August 8, 2025, reflects that, at the trial confirmation conference held on that day, defendant's counsel informed the court that they have contemplated consolidating the cases in which the plaintiffs are represented by the Dre Law firm. The court also noted in that minute order, that the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, and that no documents have been submitted to make it a true consolidation for trial. Based on the parties' agreement, the court set the Smith Action for jury trial to commence on June 8, 2026, and the Signa Action for a 15 day jury trial to commence on June 18, 2026.

Court records reflect that, though the matters described above were consolidated for pretrial purposes only, no party has filed a motion to consolidate the matters for all purposes, including trial. (See Villa Zinfandel, LLC v. Bearman (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 848, 862-863 [general discussion].) As a result, there appears to be some confusion as to what cases, apart from the Smith Action and the Signa Action, will proceed to trial and when. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will order the parties to appear at the hearing to discuss the status of trial.

Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Seal; Motion for Consolidation; Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling

(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith is granted, in part as to exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(2) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith, that redacts exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Ryan Smith.

(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Mark Signa, is denied. On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant shall file

unsealed, the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal by defendant on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion, without any redactions to any exhibit or material contained in any exhibit.

(4) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Jonathan Lee Reyes, is denied. On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant shall file unsealed, the appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion, without any redactions to any exhibit or material contained in any exhibit.

(5) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of Michael Little and Tiffany Little is granted as to exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, only, to the amended appendix of evidence in support of defendant's motion as to plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint; and as to exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, only, to the amended appendix of evidence in support of defendant's motion as to plaintiff Michael Little's complaint. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(6) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in the Tiffany Little matter, that redacts exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 4, 6 through 13, 16 through 25, and 30 through 37 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to plaintiff Tiffany Little's complaint.

(7) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against Michael Little's complaint, that redacts exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any exhibit, apart from exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29, shall be redacted from that public version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 16, 18, and 22 through 29 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Michael Little's complaint.

(8) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California to seal exhibits in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Matthew Stern is granted as to exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied.

(9) On or before 5 p.m. on June 3, 2026, defendant The Regents of the University of California shall file a public version of the amended appendix of evidence lodged conditionally under seal on February 25, 2026, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication in the Matthew Stern matter, that redacts exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, only. No other exhibit, or material contained in any other exhibit, apart from exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16, shall be redacted from that public redacted version of defendant's amended appendix of evidence.

Further, exhibits 3, 4, 7 through 9, and 16 to the amended appendix of evidence lodged by defendant on February 25, 2026, shall remain lodged under seal pending the determination of defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication in the Matthew Stern matter.

(10) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Ryan Smith's complaint is denied.

(11) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiffs Mark Signa, Michael Little, Tiffany Little, Matthew Stern, and Jonathan Reyes to consolidate cases for all purposes including trial is granted. This case no.

18CV05728, shall be consolidated with Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., for trial. This case is designated as the lead case. The parties shall file all documents in the lead case. The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss future proceedings in accordance with this ruling.

Background: On November 21, 2018, plaintiff Mark Signa (Signa) filed their original complaint in this case against defendants The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD) Chief Dustin Olson (Olson), asserting four causes of action: (1) violation of Title 42 United States Code section 1983 - denial of first amendment rights; (2) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. Briefly, Signa alleges in their complaint that they have been employed as a police officer by the Regents since 1990, and that the Regents and UCSB-PD retaliated against Signa after Signa voiced concerns about purported misconduct within the UCSB-PD.

On February 4, 2019, Signa filed their operative first amended complaint (the Signa FAC), alleging two causes of action: (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and (2) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5. On February 22, 2019, the Regents and Olson filed an answer to the Signa FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-seven affirmative defenses.

On May 22, 2019, the court ordered a stay of this case pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies by Signa. The court lifted the stay on January 21, 2021.

On September 17, 2021, the court adopted its tentative ruling on a motion of the Regents to transfer and consolidate with this case (the Signa Action) for pre-trial purposes only, the following matters: (1) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Little Action); (2) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Stern Action); (3) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v.

The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Reyes Action); (4) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01625 entitled John Doe v. The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara, et al. (the Smith Action); and (5) Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 21CV01256 entitled Ryan Hashimoto v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Hashimoto Action).

On February 26, 2025, the court entered judgment in favor of the Regents, the UCSB-PD, and the University of California Santa Barbara, and against plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto, as to the complaint filed in the Hashimoto Action.

Relevant here, on January 22, 2026, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the Signa FAC (the Regents Signa Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the complaint of Matthew Stern (Stern) filed in the Stern Action (the Regents Stern Motion). The Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Stern Motion were calendared for hearing on April 24, 2026.

On January 26, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Tiffany Little (T Little) filed in the Little Action, and separately filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against the complaint of plaintiff Michael Little (M Little) in the Little Action (collectively, the Regents Little Motions). The Regents Little Motions were calendared for hearing on May 1, 2026. T Little and M Little have filed opposition to the Regents Little Motions.

On February 10, Olson filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against the Signa FAC (the Olson Motion). On February 11, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint filed by plaintiff Ryan Smith (Smith) in the Smith Action (the Regents Smith Motion). On February 13, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication against the complaint filed by plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes) in the Reyes Action (the Regents Reyes Motion).

On February 19, defendant David Millard (Millard) filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against the complaint filed by Stern in the Stern Action (the Millard Motion.) The Olson Motion, the Regents Smith Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion were calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026.

On March 16, the Regents filed an ex parte application for an order to set the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion on May 8, 2026, to allow that motion to be heard no later than 30 days before trial. On March 18, the court signed and entered an order granting that application, and moved the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to May 8, 2026.

On April 3, Stern filed their opposition to the Regents Stern Motion. On April 11, the court signed, and on April 13 filed, an order approving a stipulation by the parties to continue the hearing on the Regents Stern Motion to May 8, 2026, and the hearing on the Regents Signa Motion to May 15, 2026. The Regents Smith Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 8. The Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026.

On April 17, Smith filed their opposition to the Regents Smith Motion. On April 21, Signa filed their opposition to the Regents Signa Motion. On April 24, Signa filed opposition to the Olson Motion, Reyes filed opposition to the Regents Reyes Motion, and Stern filed opposition to the Millard Motion.

On May 1, the court issued a minute order (the May 1 Order), continuing the hearing on the Regents Little Motions to June 12, 2026, as a result of the lodging by the Regents of material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions conditionally under seal without having filed an appropriate motion for an order placing those materials under seal, or the entry of any such order. The court set a hearing on any motion for an order to file the materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Little Motions on May 29, 2026, and a briefing schedule that requires any such motion to be filed and served on or before May 11, among other things.

On May 8, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order (the May 8 Order), continuing the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to May 29, 2026, and the hearing on the Regents Stern Motion to June 12, 2026, as a result of the lodging by the Regents of material submitted as a basis for adjudication of those motions conditionally under seal without having filed an appropriate motion for an order placing those materials under seal. The May 8 Order also requires that any motion for an order to place under seal the materials lodged by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion be filed and served on or before May 11, 2026; set a briefing schedule for oppositions and replies as to that motion; and set a hearing on any such motion on May 22, 2026.

As to the materials lodged by the Regents conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Stern Motion, the May 8 Order set a hearing date for any motion to place those materials under seal on May 29, 2026.

On May 11, the Regents separately filed: (1) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Signa Motion (the Signa Motion to Seal); (2) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Reyes Motion (the Reyes Motion to Seal); (3) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Little Motions (the Little Motion to Seal); (4) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Smith Motion (the Smith Motion to Seal); and (5) a motion for an order to file under seal the exhibits lodged by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion (the Stern Motion to Seal).

On May 15, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order adopting its tentative ruling denying the Olson Motion and the Millard Motion. Further, the court continued the Regents Signa Motion and the Regents Reyes Motion to June 5, 2026, to allow time to resolve the Signa Motion to Seal and the Reyes Motion to Seal. Also on May 15, after the deadline prescribed in the May 8 Order, Smith filed an opposition to the Smith Motion to Seal.

On May 18, M Little and T Little filed an opposition to the Little Motion to Seal; Stern filed an opposition to the Stern Motion to Seal; Signa filed an opposition to the Signa Motion to Seal; and Reyes filed an opposition to the

Reyes Motion to Seal. On May 20, Signa, M Little, T Little, Reyes, and Stern (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for a hearing on a forthcoming motion to consolidate the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action, and the Stern Action (collectively, the Actions) for trial. On May 21, after a hearing, the court granted that application, set the hearing on that motion on May 29, 2026, and ordered that any opposition to that motion be filed no later than May 27.

On May 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their motion for an order consolidating the Actions for all purposes including trial (the Motion to Consolidate). On May 22, the court continued the hearing on the Smith Motion to Seal to May 29, 2026. On May 27, the Regents filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate with the court.

Analysis: (1) Smith Motion to Seal

California has "long recognized a common law right of access to public documents, including court records." (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483 (Overstock); see also McGuire v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1685, 1687 ["Court records are open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality."].)

"California law also recognizes a constitutional right of access, grounded in the First Amendment, to court proceedings and court documents. [Citation.] 'A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil trials. [Citation.] That is because "the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system, and that interest strongly supports a general right of access in ordinary civil cases."' [Citation.] Because orders to seal court records implicate the public's right of access under the First Amendment, such orders are subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny, including at the trial court level." (In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1078.)

California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 "apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(1).) Those rules "do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential by law." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(2).) "[T]he rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3).)

"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." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)

"A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)

"A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).) The proofs of service submitted with the Smith Motion to Seal, and the filing by Smith of an opposition to that motion, indicate that a copy of that motion was properly served.

"[A] reasoned decision about sealing . . . records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how.

This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them." (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) The Smith Motion to Seal seeks an order placing under seal "exhibits numbered 1-23 which were filed in support

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Seal Tentative Ruling

The motion to seal records set by the Court on May 8, 2026, for this hearing is continued to May 29, 2026.

Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/05/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling

(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Mark Signa's complaint is denied.

(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant The Regents of the University of California for summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication against plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes' complaint is denied.

Background: As a preliminary matter, the court notes that on September 17, 2021, after a hearing, the court issued an order granting a motion filed in this case (the Signa Action) on July 8, 2021, by the Regents of the University of California (the Regents). That motion sought an order transferring and consolidating with the Signa Action for pre-trial purposes only, the following cases: Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01431 entitled Michael Little, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Little Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV01625 entitled John Doe v.

The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara, et al. (the Smith Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV02586 entitled Jonathan Lee Reyes v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Reyes Action); Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 19CV04418 entitled Matthew Stern v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Stern Action); and Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 21CV01256 entitled Ryan Hashimoto v. The Regents of the University of California, et al. (the Hashimoto Action).

On February 26, 2026, the court entered judgment in favor of the Regents, the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (UCSB-PD), and the University of California Santa Barbara, as against the complaint filed by plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto in the Hashimoto Action.

On May 20, 2026, plaintiffs Mark Signa (Signa), Michael Little, Tiffany Little, Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes), and Matthew Stern (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for a hearing on a forthcoming motion by Plaintiffs to consolidate the Signa Action, the Little Action, the Reyes Action, and the Stern Action (collectively, the Actions) for all purposes including trial. On May 21, after a hearing, the court

20.) "The choice of a fee calculation method is generally one within the discretion of the trial court, the goal under either the percentage or lodestar approach being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts." (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 504.)

"The " 'experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.' " [Citations.]" (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)

The primary problem with using a percentage in this case is that a PAGA action operates differently than a class action, namely in that it does not create a common fund with which to determine fees as a percentage of the recovery. Rather, the lodestar approach is more appropriate for a case such as this where there is both a class action and a PAGA action. This is especially true where counsel has not differentiated between time spent on the class action as opposed to the PAGA action. While counsel does not set forth the time expended in great detail, the time spent is not challenged, and the court will accept the representation of time spent as true and reasonable.

However, the requested fee is excessive. "The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case." (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

"The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) While the court does not question counsels' training, experience, or skill level, $1,500.00 per hour is not a prevailing rate in the community of Santa Barbara County. The 2025 "Real Rates" report attached to counsel's declaration is for the County of Los Angeles and sets forth rates from the low of $485 per hour to a high of $1,365 per hour. It then lists rates for employment and labor attorneys with the low being $384 per hour and the high being $1,252 per hour. The rates for pre-litigation work are even lower. Thus, even in Los Angeles County the prevailing rates, and even the highest rates, are lower than the rate counsel seeks.

In this case, there is no explanation of why the attorney claiming a rate of $1,500 per hour billed more than twice as many hours as the next highest paid attorney, at $900 per hour. And there is no explanation why the $900 per hour attorney billed more than twice as many hours as any other of the billing attorneys. This does not appear to have been a particularly novel or difficult case and many, if not most, tasks should have been delegated to less senior attorneys.

The court will use the reasonable Santa Barbara County "blended" rate of $600 per hour for all attorneys (see 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5 th 426, 439 fn. 16), resulting in total attorneys' fees approved of $237,540.00.

Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of CA et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/08/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Dismiss Tentative Ruling