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, 05/22/2026 - 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: People of the State of California vs 33,100.00 US Currency Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California vs 33,100.00 US Currency