SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al.

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to Seal Medical Records in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to Seal Medical Records in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

In pro per Plaintiff James Sanford’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to seal medical records is DROPPED from the calendar for defective service.

No proof of service has been filed in connection with the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) [“Proof of service must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”].) Defective service of notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) Thus, this matter must be dropped.

The Court also notes that the motion does include a notice of motion at all, and also does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D).

While the Court makes no ruling on this motion given that it is dropped, the Court provides the following comments in the event that Plaintiff refiles his motion with proper notice in the future. First, to the extent that it is a motion to seal records, it is deficient in that it does not conform to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b), including for instance, identifying the records sought to be sealed, providing the requisite declaration, supplying the subject records in redacted form, lodging the unredacted versions conditionally under seal., etc.

Second, the introduction of the motion requests that the Court “transfer[] the case to federal court.” This is not a permissible request as part of a “motion to seal medical records.” Further, removal is typically an option for a defendant. If Plaintiff seeks to file an action in federal court and dismiss the present case (which he elected to file in state court), that is a decision for Plaintiff.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)