Erin O’Connor vs Board of Trustees of the Santa Barbara Community College District et al

Case Number

24CV03489

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer and Motions to Strike; Motion to Seal

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. Defendants Santa Barbara Community College District and Board of Trustees’ motion to file records under seal is denied as follows:

            a. The motion to file portions of the special motion to strike entire complaint under seal, is denied.

            b. The motion to file the entirety of the exhibits to the special motion to strike entire complaint under seal, is denied without prejudice.

            c. The moving parties shall comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6). Should the court not be notified by the moving parties that the lodged records are to be filed unsealed within 10 days of this order, the clerk of the court shall return the lodged documents to the respective moving party.

2. The hearings on defendants’ special motion to strike entire complaint, demurrer, and motion to strike portions of the complaint are continued to February 28, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. If Santa Barbara Community College District and Board of Trustees wish to proceed with the special motion to strike, the statutory deadlines to file and serve documents shall apply as if the continued hearing date were the original hearing date.

Background:

This action commenced on June 21, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Erin O’Connor (“plaintiff”) against defendants Board of Trustees of the Santa Barbara Community College District (“Board”), Santa Barbara Community College District (“District”), Maria L. Villagomez, Linda Dozer, Deneatrice Lewis, Jens-Uwe Kuhn, and Kindred Murillo (collectively “defendants”). The complaint sets forth causes of action for: (1) Breach of contract; (2) Fraudulent inducement; (3) Tortious interference; (4) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) Negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) Invasion of privacy.

As alleged in the complaint:

Plaintiff began his employment with District in 1989 as an adjunct professor. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff served in this role through 1998. (Ibid.) In 2005, plaintiff became a full-time faculty member served as a Professor of Astronomy in the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, giving astronomy lectures and labs, operating the planetarium and observatory, and teaching geology field courses to the Eastern Sierra and Death Valley. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s evaluations over the past 20 years have been positive. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s claims are based on a settlement agreement (“agreement”) entered into by plaintiff and District on August 31, 2020, as the result of mediation before JAMS. (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 18.) Pursuant to the agreement, District agreed to seal and maintain the confidentiality of the file documenting its investigation related to the dispute. (Compl, ¶ 21.) Paragraph 9 of the agreement provided: “Any documents related to the District’s investigation, including any draft or final investigation report, any findings, any witness statements, the July 22, 2020 determination letter, and this Agreement, will be placed in a separate sealed investigation file[,] [which] will only be disclosed [in] accordance with a court order, valid subpoena, directive from state or federal agencies, or as otherwise required by law.” (Compl., ¶ 22.)

District also agreed not to prosecute plaintiff based on the matters that led to the agreement. (Compl., ¶ 23.) Paragraph 11 of the agreement provided: “The parties agree that they shall not, at any time hereafter, commence, maintain or prosecute any action, suit, proceeding, investigation, complaint, claim, grievance or charge with any court, administrative agency, arbitrator, or any other body or person . . . based in whole or in part upon, or arising out of or in any way connected with the District’s investigation, the underlying allegations within, or any of the matters referred to in this Agreement.” (Compl., ¶ 24.)

The agreement also included a non-retaliation clause and a non-disparagement clause. (Compl., ¶ 25.)

On January 24, 2023, “Individual Defendants directed District staff and agents to initiate an investigation against Plaintiff for alleged misconduct arising out of and related to those matters covered by the Agreement. Specifically, former Superintendent Kindred Murillo, Director Linda Dozer, former Vice President Deneatrice Lewis, Vice President Maria Villagomez, and Dean Jens-Uwe Kuhn, filed or solicited complaints against Plaintiff related to and arising out of matters covered by the Agreement, with Dr. Murillo, Ms. Lewis, and Ms. Dozer then directing and ordering agents and staff to conduct an investigation into those matters.” (Compl., ¶ 26.)

On September 6, 2023, Murillo recommended Plaintiff’s dismissal to the District’s Board of Trustees despite knowing the recommendation violated the agreement. (Compl., ¶ 27.) The District’s Board of Trustees approved plaintiff’s dismissal on September 14, 2023. (Ibid.)

The dismissal charges disclosed the confidential investigation documents that District was required to have sealed pursuant to the agreement. (Compl., ¶ 28.) Specifically, the dismissal charges attached the final investigation report dated April 13, 2020, and the July 22, 2020, determination letter. (Ibid.) The charges themselves also contained a nine-paragraph section entitled, “August 2020 Settlement Agreement,” in which District disclosed a “multitude of sensationalized details” related to the investigation into the conduct that led to the agreement. (Ibid.)

The charges were based almost exclusively on the matters arising out of and related to the agreement, in violation of the mutual promise to not prosecute. (Compl., ¶ 29.)

The dismissal charges were brought in retaliation for plaintiff’s participation in the events leading up to the agreement and because of plaintiff’s request to teach field courses at the District. (Compl., ¶ 30.) By distributing the dismissal charges, defendants disparaged plaintiff, in violation of the agreement, by accusing him of immorality, dishonesty, and of scheming against his colleagues, “all with respect to matters related to and arising out of the Agreement.” (Ibid.)

Defendants have now filed: (1) a motion to file records under seal, (2) a special motion to strike the entire complaint (Anti-SLAPP motion), (3) a demurrer, and (4) a motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint.

The motion to file records under seal is unopposed. The anti-SLAPP motion, demurrer, and motion to strike are opposed.

Analysis:

1. Motion to File Records Under Seal

District and Board move to file under seal: (1) Portions of the Anti-SLAPP motion, and (2) the entirety of the exhibits to the Anti-SLAPP motion. Those exhibits have been conditionally lodged under seal. The exhibits consist of nearly 2000 pages.

“A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil trials. That is because the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system, and that interest strongly supports a general right of access in ordinary civil cases.” (In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575.)

“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).)

California Rules of Court, rule 2.551 subdivision (b)(2) requires a party requesting that a record be filed under seal must, among other things, serve on “any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal . . . a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.” Further: “The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, 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.” (Id. at subd. (b)(4).

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) provides:

“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.”

“[A] reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how. This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

With respect to the anti-SLAPP motion: District and Board argue that the motion “contains references to confidential personnel investigations and information regarding a former college student interviewed in that investigation.” (Motion, p. 3, ll. 8-10.)

Other than providing a redacted and an unredacted copy of the anti-SLAPP motion, District and Board did not specifically list out what they were seeking to have redacted. This required the court to methodically go through each of the documents and compare them. None of the proposed redactions make any sense. For example: at page 2, line 15, District and Board request that the words “with an investigation” be redacted. Under no possible justification would these three words be subject to filing under seal. The complaint itself alleges that there was an investigation of plaintiff.

There is not a single word, that District and Board request be filed under seal, in the anti-SLAPP motion itself, that in any way falls under the California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) parameters for filing under seal. And, contrary to the implication made by District and Board, there is no confidential information “regarding a former college student interviewed.”

To the extent that the proposed redactions are the result of the agreement: A prelawsuit confidentiality agreement “is entirely inconsistent with the mandatory requirements of rules 2.550 and 2.551 and the constitutional values informing those requirements.” (Savalglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600, fn. 8.) “A record not filed in the trial court may be filed under seal in the reviewing court only by order of the reviewing court; it must not be filed under seal solely by stipulation or agreement of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.46(d)(1).)

The motion to file portions of the anti-SLAPP motion will be denied.

With respect to the request that the entirety of the exhibits be filed under seal: The District and Board argue that they are “replete with confidential employee and student identities; witness statement information and materials . . ..” (Motion, p. 3, ll. 20-23.) The court has reviewed the voluminous exhibits and does agree that there is some information that implicates third-party privacy rights. However, the vast majority of the information contained in the documents does not implicate third-party privacy rights, nor would there be any overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records. Additionally, the fact that much of the information contained in the exhibits would likely be embarrassing to plaintiff, is not sufficient grounds to seal the record. The District and Board have failed to make a request that is narrowly tailored as required.

The District and Board were required to, but did not, identify the specific information and the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure. Counsel for the District and Board declares: “The Exhibits to Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike comprise over 1,000 pages of investigation reports and materials and, as such, redacting over 1,000 pages of documents would be impractical.” (Torres Dec., ¶ 10.) “Impractical” is not a sufficient excuse for failure to narrowly tailor the request to only include items that should be shielded from the public’s important right to access.

Even though the motion is unopposed: “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.” (Savalglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 596.) It is that right of the public that the court must protect in this instance.

Because District and Board have failed to narrowly tailor their request, or to explain the specific harms sought to be avoided, the motion will be denied. It is not the court’s burden to go through the documents and determine each redaction that should be made. That burden belongs to the moving party. As the court does agree that there is some information that should be filed under seal, the denial of the motion will be without prejudice. Should another motion be made, counsel should make narrowly tailored requests, specifically explain why the information should be under seal, and include declarations from individuals that have actual knowledge of the facts stated rather than solely by counsel.

“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).)

2. Special Motion to Strike Entire Complaint

As the full, unredacted, version of the motion, and most of the information contained in the exhibits, must be included in the public file before making a ruling, the anti-SLAPP motion will be continued for a sufficient amount of time to allow the moving party to either: (1) file unredacted copies of all moving papers, with exhibits, in the public record, (2)  present a proper motion to seal portions of the exhibits, or (3) to withdraw the motion.

Having reviewed all the evidence, and argument presented by the papers, the court does note, without making a ruling at this time, that it is unlikely the anti-SLAPP motion will be successful.

3. Demurrer and Motion to Strike

As the anti-SLAPP motion should be ruled upon prior to, or at the same time as, ruling on the demurrer or motion to strike, those hearings will also be continued.