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

safety risk to those that UCSB-PD was intended to serve and protect. (Ibid.) On January 10, 2017, Smith and several other officers were present at a University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) mutual aid event. (Compl., P. 19.) The officers were separated into two vehicles and Smith instructed the officers to drive "code-three," meaning that the officers were to use their emergency lights on top of their vehicles to evade traffic. (Ibid.) Both vehicles proceeded to drive unsafely around vehicles and crossed intersections with only lights, no sirens. (Ibid.)

UCLA did not request the officers to drive code-three, and the officers were not responding to an emergency. (Ibid.) Rather, Smith was attempting to get to UCLA in time for a breakfast event. (Ibid.) On February 15, 2017, Tiffany informed Millard that Smith was involved in an intimate relationship with a subordinate officer, and informed him that Smith gave the subordinate officer preferential treatment by dismissing a vehicle accident that caused damage to UC Regents' property, which would constitute a violation of UCSB-PD's and UC Regents' policy against nepotism and conflicting relationships. (Compl., P. 20.)

Tiffany informed Millard that Smith intervened when Corporal Stern and Tiffany attempted to exercise normal supervisory duties over the officer. (Ibid.) Tiffany expressed to Millard that Smith's actions were illegal, unethical, and violated department policy. (Ibid.) In May 2017, Smith was present at a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) mutual aid and requested to use a UC Regents' rental vehicle to drive to Oakland. (Compl., P. 21.) Smith did not drive to Oakland, but instead drove to Santa Cruz and used a UC Regents' gas card to purchase gas and used the vehicle for non-job-related purposes. (Ibid.)

On May 19, 2017, Tiffany informed Millard that Smith had used a UC Regents rental vehicle to drive to Santa Cruz for non-job-related purposes, and that Smith had attempted to intervene in an administrative investigation. (Compl., P. 22.) On June 6, 2017, Smith drove recklessly during a pursuit, hit a parked car, and did not stop, in violation of Vehicle Code section 20002. (Compl., P. 23.) In June 2017, Tiffany informed Millard that Smith was potentially witnessed committing a hit-and-run while on duty and that Smith had committed timecard fraud. (Id. at P. 24.)

Tiffany also informed Millard that in January 2017, Smith ordered an unsanctioned and unnecessary code-three emergency response that resulted in the involved vehicles dangerously maneuvering through traffic in an unsafe manner. (Ibid.) Tiffany again expressed to Millard that Smith's actions were unethical, against departmental policy, and were creating a risk of harm to the public. (Ibid.) In June 2017, Tiffany met with Millard and reported possible legal violations committed by Smith including misappropriations of department funds, improper use of emergency vehicles during mutual aid events, and a possible hit and run that was reported to Tiffany by a subordinate. (Compl., P. 25.)

Millard informed Tiffany that he would review the documents that Tiffany had submitted. (Ibid.) In June 2017, Smith was placed on leave from his employment with UCSB-PD. (Compl., P. 26.) On July 31, 2017, Millard requested that Michael submit a memorandum for a Corporal position. (Compl., P. 27.) At the time, Michael was assigned as a detective, which was a secure multi-year position and a development position for career advancement. (Ibid.) A move from a detective assignment in investigations to a patrol corporal was in effect a demotion because it did not offer similar opportunities for advancement and development. (Ibid.)

In September 2017, Tiffany was informed that Smith returned to work, so she sent a text message to Millard about her concerns about potential retaliation by Smith. (Compl., 28.) Millard informed Tiffany that Smith was placed on leave for things unrelated to the complaint Tiffany had made in June 2017. (Ibid.) In October 2017, Tiffany returned to work. (Compl., P. 29.) In December 2017, Smith left UC Regents and an investigation into Tiffany's complaint regarding Smith was never performed. (Compl., P. 30.)

On December 7, 2017, Smorodinsky sent an email to members of UC Regents' range staff that indicated that Michael was not included as an instructor at the upcoming range training on December 10, 2017. (Compl., P. 31.) Past practice for range training was that all instructors attend scheduled range training. (Ibid.) In December 2017, Tiffany received a subpoena from an attorney in relation to a criminal case involving a former

UCSB-PD officer who was being investigated for sexual assault, providing alcohol to students, and other inappropriate conduct. (Compl., 32.) Tiffany notified Millard prior to and after speaking with the attorney. (Ibid.) After Tiffany met with the attorney, Tiffany told Millard that she told the truth regarding the former officer and, in response, Millard told Tiffany that she talked too much. (Ibid.) On December 20, 2017, Michael submitted a training request to Pierce but, despite repeated inquiries and requests by Michael, Pierce did not take any action on the training request until March 27, 2018. (Compl., P. 33.)

On February 13, 2018, Michael met with Romero, who expressed that he was furious at Michael for reporting Smith, and Romero told Michael that Smith did not do anything wrong. (Compl., P. 34.) In March 2018, Tiffany submitted a resume and participated in an interview for a detective position within the problem-solving unit supervised by Romero. (Compl., P. 35.) Two other individuals were also considered for the position and each of them had approximately three years of experience as an officer. (Ibid.)

Tiffany had approximately eight years of experience as an officer, had attended search warrant and advanced investigations classes, and had received stellar reviews. (Ibid.) Romero selected an applicant for the position that was less qualified than Tiffany for the detective position. (Ibid.) Tiffany asked Romero about what more the problem-solving unit required from her in addition to extensive patrol experience, supervisory experience, experience training others, well written reports, and good performance reviews. (Ibid.)

Romero informed Tiffany that Romero wanted to see more warrants from Tiffany. (Ibid.) Romero was aware that Tiffany missed time the previous year due to FMLA leave and that Tiffany's leave directly affected how many warrants Tiffany wrote. (Ibid.) In March 2018, Tiffany sent Millard a request to move her to e-schedule after recent openings, but Millard informed Tiffany that the department was not going to have a corporal on e-schedule shift. (Compl., P. 36.) However, after shifts were changed, Millard placed a less senior corporal on the e-schedule shift. (Ibid.)

Tiffany was a senior corporal and normally would have been among the first to request an open position. (Ibid.) In April 2018, Romero expressed discontent over Tiffany's reporting of misconduct by Smith. (Compl., P. 37.) Romero told Tiffany that he and Millard believed Tiffany throws a fit when Tiffany does not get what she wants. (Ibid.) On May 11, 2018, Smorodinsky expressed to Tiffany that Smith's misconduct was not that bad, and Tiffany responded that Smorodinsky did not have first-hand knowledge of the situation. (Compl., P. 38.)

Smorodinsky asked Tiffany for examples of what she witnessed, and Tiffany provided several examples of Smith's misconduct. (Ibid.) Smorodinsky told Tiffany that she should have gone to Smith directly instead of reporting Smith, to which Tiffany expressed that she went through the proper chain of command to report misconduct by a supervisor. (Ibid.) Following the conversation, Tiffany spoke with Sgt. Wilson and Sgt. Bly and explained that she was facing repercussions for reporting misconduct by Smith and that Smorodinsky told Tiffany that she should not have reported Smith's misconduct. (Ibid.)

On May 12, 2018, Tiffany discovered that Smorodinsky had intentionally excluded Tiffany from assisting in an overtime assignment, by choosing less senior and less experienced officers to assist in executing a search warrant. (Compl., P. 39.) On May 12, 2018, Tiffany was informed by Sgt. Wilson that Sgt. Wilson had informed Millard about Smorodinsky's discontent and his discouraging her from making reports of misconduct in the future. (Compl., P. 40.) Millard did not investigate Smorodinsky's conduct toward Tiffany. (Ibid.)

On June 13, 2018, Pierce sent out assignments for the quarterly active shooter training, but Michael was not assigned to either of the active shooter training days for the department. (Compl., P. 41.) In previous practice, all range instructors participated in this department training, and Michael was the only range instructor not assigned. (Ibid.) In July 2018, Tiffany was not invited to participate or coordinate new hire post academy training, despite Tiffany creating, scheduling, and facilitating the training for the past several years. (Compl., P. 42.)

On August 15, 2018, Tiffany attended a union meeting and expressed discontent with Millard's failure to address complaints, specifically Tiffany's discontent was in relation to Millard's handling of complaints by her about Smith's misconduct and Millard's handling of Smorodinsky's conduct towards her. (Compl., P. 43.)

On August 16, 2018, Millard told Tiffany that he was upset about comments that were made about him at the union meeting held the previous night and said that he knew exactly what was said at the meeting. (Compl., P. 44.) Tiffany expressed that she felt the department failed to properly investigate Smith's reported actions appropriately and that it was a failure of leadership to avoid proceeding with a proper investigation. (Ibid.) On August 21, 2018, Farley issued memorandums for Corporal and Field Training Officer (FTO) positions that indicated plaintiffs were demoted from corporal and FTO positions, while several other less experienced officers were promoted to corporal and FTO positions at the same time. (Compl., P. 45.)

On September 1, 2018, Tiffany submitted an Ethics Point Incident complaint to the UCSB Local Designated Officer under the UC Whistleblower Protection Policy, and on September 3, 2018, Michael did the same. (Compl., P.P. 46, 47.) On September 3, 2018, Smorodinsky and Romero denied Michael a computer forensic analyst position despite Michael having been previously selected to fill that role during his time as a detective and having 25 years of computer programming and software development experience in the technology industry. (Compl., P. 48.)

On September 17, 2018, Tiffany met with UC Regents' Title IX office and expressed her concerns regarding her previous reports of another officer's behavior to Smith that was ignored by UC Regents. (Compl., P. 49.) Tiffany also reported her concerns that Smith was engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate causing a hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims. (Ibid.) On October 11, 2018, Tiffany was interviewed by a UCSB Senior Investigator regarding Tiffany's whistleblower retaliation complaint. (Compl., P. 50.)

In September and October 2018, Pierce made assignments for the annual ROTC range training and Michael was not assigned. (Compl., P. 51.) Pierce did not send an email notifying the range staff of the assignment and made no notation on UC Regents' calendar that a range activity was being assigned to other instructors. (Ibid.) Pierce, after being notified that Michael was short on hours due to a shift change, suggested that Michael work patrol rather than contribute to the range instruction. (Ibid.)

On November 27, 2018, Tiffany emailed Karen Kramer, an outside investigator hired by UC Regents, that since filing the whistleblower complaint, Tiffany has had her personal belongings thrown in the trash, her house had been egged, and sergeants had ignored Tiffany. (Compl., P. 52.) Since being interviewed by the investigator, no action has been taken to address plaintiffs' complaints, nor has UC Regents done anything to protect plaintiffs from further retaliation. (Ibid.) On January 14, 2019, Michael was instructed by Millard to make a bid for shift and vacation requests for the upcoming 2019 year. (Compl., P. 53.)

Millard emailed a schedule to choose from and gave Michael only two hours to make the shift selection choices. (Ibid.) Millard's schedule limited Michael's choices and did not provide all shift slots available to patrol corporals, so Michael emailed Millard regarding the limited choices. (Ibid.) Millard dismissed Michael's concerns regarding the limited choices. (Ibid.) On January 25, 2019, Pierce emailed assignments for the department range training instructors, which assigned Michael a single day of instruction of the five scheduled days. (Compl., P. 54.)

Even after two more days of instruction were added because of inclement weather, Michael was assigned only that single day. (Ibid.) On February 4, 2019, Tiffany was removed from working a previously approved overtime shift for February 6, 2019. (Compl., P. 55.) Tiffany was informed that Millard ordered her removal from the overtime shift. (Ibid.) On March 13, 2019, Michael was informed of a complaint made against him by a co-worker, stating that Michael had turned around in a hallway at a UCSB-PD building, noticed his co-worker, and then turned around without saying anything. (Compl., P. 56.)

The co-worker allegedly told his supervisors that he felt threatened and fearful by Michael's action in ignoring him. (Ibid.) UC Regents, and the individually named defendants, retaliated against plaintiffs based on plaintiffs' reports of activities that would result in violation of, or noncompliance with, state or federal laws and regulations, including Penal Code section 424, Vehicle Code section 21055, Vehicle Code section 23104, Vehicle Code section 20002, and policies of UCSB-PD and UC Regents' regarding nepotism. (Compl., P. 57.)

As relevant to these motions, on February 16, 2021, UC Regents filed an answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth twenty-eight affirmative defenses.

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

with only the public redacted version. If a party's attorney but not the party has access to the record, only the party's attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).) "The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court ... unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)

There are other requirements. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(c)-(h).) "The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication." (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596.) "Substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases, and the transcripts and records pertaining to these proceedings, are 'presumptively open.' " (Id., p. 597.) These standards are embodied in the California Rules of Court: "The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: "(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." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) "The burden ... is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents ...." (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) "[T]he trial courts can, and should, view overly inclusive sealing efforts with a jaundiced eye, and impose sanctions as appropriate." (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 500.) "If the court denies the motion or application to seal, the moving party may notify the court that the lodged record is to be filed unsealed.

This notification must be received within 10 days of the order denying the motion or application to seal, unless otherwise ordered by the court. On receipt of this notification, the clerk must unseal and file the record. If the moving party does not notify the court within 10 days of the order, the clerk must (1) return the lodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete the lodged record if it is in electronic form." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) (3) The February 4, 2026, Notices of Lodging Are Insufficient to Justify Filing under Seal On January 26, 2026, UC Regents lodged its appendices of evidence in support of both motions for summary judgment under seal without notice that it was doing so.

On February 4, 2026, UC Regents gave notice that it lodged these materials under seal and filed an amended appendix reflecting this lodging, but did not include any memorandum or declaration supporting the proposed filing of these materials under seal. Thus, the court is left with a record that includes two seven-volume appendices that were lodged conditionally under seal, but no basis to file them. The court declines to rule on these motions for adjudication based on documents that have not been filed. "Generally, power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the court, and there is no right to a continuance as a matter of law." (Mahoney v.

Southland Mental Health Associates Medical Group (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 167, 170.) This matter has been pending since March 2019 and is set for trial on June 18, 2026. The court declines to continue the June 18 trial date under these circumstances. This leaves the court and the parties limited time to address these sealing issues. The court is mindful that some of the materials lodged under seal may be subject to Penal Code section 832.7 pertaining to personnel records of peace officers and the parties have not briefed the court on these issues.

Considering all the circumstances, the court will: (1) continue UC Regents' motions for summary judgment to June 12, 2026, based on a finding of good cause to address these sealing issues within 30 days before trial (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(3)); (2) provide UC Regents 10 calendar days (on or before May 11) to file an appropriate motion to support filing under seal all or part of the Sealed Materials (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)); and (3) if no such motion is filed by this time, permanently delete the Sealed Materials from its files.

This approach preserves the agreed upon June 18 trial date while permitting the parties a fair opportunity to be

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.

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 (UCPD) 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 conduction within the UCPD. 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 Signa's exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court lifted the stay on January 21, 2021. On September 17, 2021, the court adopted its tentative ruling on the motion of the Regents to transfer to this department and consolidate with this case for pre-trial purposes: (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 UCPD, and the University of California Santa Barbara, and against plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto as to the causes of action alleged in the complaint filed in the Hashimoto Action. On December 24, 2025, defendants David Millard (Millard) and Gregory Smorodinsky (Smorodinsky) filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication (which the court will refer to as the Smorodinsky Motion for convenience of writing) as to the causes of action asserted in the complaint filed by plaintiff Jonathan Lee Reyes (Reyes) in the Reyes Action.

The Smorodinsky Motion was calendared for hearing on March 27, 2026. Reyes opposed the Smorodinsky Motion. On January 22, 2026, defendants Dustin Olson, Cathy Farley, David Millard, Robert Romero, Greg Pierce, and Greg Smorodinsky (collectively, the Individual Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted by plaintiff Tiffany Little (T Little) in the complaint filed in the Little Action, and separately filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted by plaintiff Michael Little (M Little) in that same complaint (collectively, the Individual Defendant Motions).

The Individual Defendant Motions were calendared for hearing on March 26, 2026. T Little and M Little opposed the Individual Defendant Motions. Also on January 22, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication as to the causes of action asserted in the Signa FAC (the Regents Signa Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the causes of action asserted in the complaint filed by plaintiff Matthew Stern (Stern) 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 of the causes of action asserted by T Little in the complaint filed in the Little Action (the Regents T Little Motion), and separately filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the causes of action asserted by M Little in that complaint (the Regents M Little Motion). The Regents T Little Motion and M Little Motion (collectively, 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 as to the claims asserted in the Signa FAC (the Olson Motion). On February 11, the Regents filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the causes of action asserted 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 as to the causes of action asserted by Reyes in the complaint filed in the Reyes Action (the Regents Reyes Motion).

On February 19, Millard filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action alleged by Stern in the complaint filed 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 specially set the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to 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 ordering the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion moved to May 8, 2026. On March 27, the court issued a minute order adopting its tentative ruling granting the Smorodinsky Motion, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, only, asserted in the complaint filed by Reyes in the Reyes Action. The Smorodinsky Motion was otherwise denied. 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, based on an inadvertent omission of certain counsel from service lists, and ordered those motions continued to those dates.

The Individual Defendant Motions remained calendared for hearing on April 24; the Regents Smith Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 8; and the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion remained calendared for hearing on May 15, 2026. On April 24, the court issued a minute order adopting its tentative ruling granting the Individual Defendant Motions, in part as to the second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 as to the moving defendants only.

The Individual Defendant Motions were otherwise denied. On May 1, 2026, the court issued a minute order (the May Order), continuing the hearing on the Regents Little Motions to June 12, 2026, based on the lodging by the Regents of material in support of those motions conditionally under seal without filing any appropriate motion for an order sealing those materials. Pursuant to the May Order, the court set a hearing on any motion for an order to seal materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Little Motions that may be filed in this case on May 29, 2026.

Further, the court ordered that any sealing motion be filed and served on or before May 11; that any opposition to that motion be filed and served on or before May 18; and that any replies be filed and served on or before May 22. Relevant here, Stern filed an opposition to the Regents Stern Motion on April 3, 2026. Smith filed their opposition to the Regents Smith Motion on April 17, 2026. Court records further reflect that Signa filed an opposition to the Regents Signa Motion on April 21, 2026; and that on April 24, Signa filed an opposition to the Olson Motion, Reyes filed an opposition to the Regents Reyes Motion, and Stern filed an opposition to the Millard Motion.

Analysis: The Regents Stern Motion: Court records reflect that on January 22, 2026, the Regents lodged conditionally under seal, an appendix containing seven volumes of evidence submitted by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion. Court records further reflect that on February 4, the Regents filed an amended appendix of evidence in support of the Regents Stern Motion, stating that the Regents "lodged" a copy of the exhibits identified in that amended appendix "under seal pursuant to the protective order dated September 9, 2022." (Feb. 4, 2026, Amended Appendix at p. 4, ll. 2-6.)

On that same date, the Regents filed a notice of lodging of their amended appendix of evidence.

On February 25, the Regents lodged under seal a document titled as a "lodging" of the Regents' amended appendix of evidence in support of the Regents Stern Motion. "The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication." (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596.) "Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(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." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).) "Unless the context indicates otherwise, 'record' means all or a portion of any document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court, by electronic means or otherwise." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(b)(1).) Though the court acknowledges that on September 9, 2022, the court signed an order approving a Stipulation for Protective Order (the Protective Order) executed by the parties' respective counsel, the court has no record showing the entry of any court order permitting the evidence or materials submitted by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion to be filed under seal.

Furthermore, and as noted in the May Order described above, the Protective Order provides that "[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.) California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, "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).) California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, provides that "[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 with only the public redacted version. If a party's attorney but not the party has access to the record, only the party's attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).) The court may not order that a record be filed under seal unless the court "expressly finds facts that establish: "(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." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) "Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal." (Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).) "The burden ... is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents ...." (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) The court also has no record showing that the Regents filed or served a motion for an order to seal any material submitted as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Stern Motion.

To the extent the Regents did not intend to request an order that any material be sealed, it is also unclear whether the Regents timely provided the written notice described in California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(3)(A)(iii). As a result, the present record includes a voluminous amount of material which has been lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Stern Motion, without the entry of any order setting forth appropriate express factual findings required by the court rules further discussed herein or permitting the sealing of that material in compliance with those rules.

Notwithstanding that the Stern Action is consolidated with the Signa Action for pretrial purposes only, it is the court's understanding that the parties expect to proceed with trial of the Stern Action on June 18, 2026, which is the date set for trial of the Signa Action. (See, e.g., Aug. 8, 2025, Minute Order [setting forth the parties' trial

estimates as to those cases "considered in consolidation" and that the parties indicated the consolidated cases will follow the trial of the Smith Action].) Under the circumstances present here, and for the reasons discussed above and in the May Order, the court will, for good cause, continue the hearing on the Regents Stern Motion to June 12, 2026, to allow for the filing and service of an appropriate motion for an order sealing any material lodged by the Regents conditionally under seal in support of and as a basis for adjudication of that motion. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(3).) The court will further order that any future motion to seal those materials shall be set for hearing on May 29, 2026. In addition, the court will order that any motion for an order sealing the material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Stern Motion must be filed and served no later than May 11, 2026. Any opposition must be filed and served on or before May 18; and any reply to that opposition must be filed and served on or before May 22.

If a motion for an order sealing the material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents in support of the Regents Stern Motion is not filed by May 11, the court will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted. The Regents Smith Motion: On February 11, 2026, in support of the Regents Smith Motion, the Regents lodged an appendix of evidence conditionally under seal pursuant to the Protective Order, and filed a notice of that lodging. On February 13, the Regents lodged an amended appendix of evidence in support of the Regents Smith Motion conditionally under seal, and a notice of that lodging.

On February 25, the Regents filed a document titled as a lodging of their amended appendix of exhibits in support of the Regents Smith Motion conditionally under seal. The same reasoning and analysis apply. For the same reasons discussed above and in the May Order, the court will, for good cause, continue the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to permit the filing of an appropriate motion for an order sealing any material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents as a basis for adjudication of that motion.

The court's records reflect that the Smith Action is set for trial on June 8, 2026. (Aug. 8, 2025, Minute Order; Oct. 2, 2025, Trial Call Order.) Under the circumstances present here, the court will continue the hearing on the Regents Smith Motion to May 29, 2026. Further, the court will order that any motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion must be filed and served on or before May 11. The hearing on any such future motion shall be set on May 22, 2026.

Due to the failure to comply with court rules and procedures for filing records under seal, upon any denial of any future motion to seal materials lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Smith Motion, it will not be feasible to follow the procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, within the time prescribed by that rule. For these reasons, the court will order that any motion to seal any material lodged conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Smith Motion include a notification of whether any lodged record is to be filed unsealed in the event that motion is denied. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) If the motion fails to include this notification, the court will presume that the lodged material at issue is not to be filed unsealed upon any denial of the motion, and will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted. Further, if a motion for an order sealing material lodged conditionally under seal by the Regents in support of the Regents Smith Motion is not filed by May 11, the court will order that material, which shall not be considered by the court, permanently deleted.

Any opposition to any motion for an order sealing any record lodged conditionally under seal in support of the Regents Smith Motion must be filed and served no later than May 13. Any reply must be filed on or before May 15. The Regents Signa Motion, the Olson Motion, the Regents Reyes Motion, and the Millard Motion: The court notes that, though the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to the Olson Motion and the Millard Motion have been filed publicly in the court, the same deficiencies exist in regard to the lodging by the Regents of material conditionally under seal as a basis for adjudication of the Regents Signa Motion and the

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