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

Case Number

18CV05728

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/01/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

1. (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. (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. (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. (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., ¶¶ 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., ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs worked at UC Regents’ location at University of California Santa Barbara Public Safety Building 574, Mesa Road, Goleta. (Id. at ¶ 16.)

Plaintiffs were police officers working under managers and supervisors including Olson, Farley, Millard, Romero, Pierce, Smorodinsky, and Ryan Smith (Smith). (Compl., ¶ 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., ¶ 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 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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 ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 26.)

On July 31, 2017, Millard requested that Michael submit a memorandum for a Corporal position. (Compl., ¶ 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., ¶ 29.)

In December 2017, Smith left UC Regents and an investigation into Tiffany’s complaint regarding Smith was never performed. (Compl., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 50.)

In September and October 2018, Pierce made assignments for the annual ROTC range training and Michael was not assigned. (Compl., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., ¶ 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., § 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.