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, 05/08/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

1. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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., § 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.