Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: BC507691, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: BC507691    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 40

BC507691 Priscilla Lujan, et al. v. Healthcare Pharmacy, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO UNSEAL CRIMINAL RECORDS

                                                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

      Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 2, 2013. The fourth amended complaint (4AC) alleges that on February 2, 2012, Plaintiff, Priscilla Lujan (Priscilla), sought medical treatment from Defendant, Allied Medical Group. Defendants, Andrew Jarminski, M.D. and Joseph Gutierrez, M.D., allegedly prescribed topical medication formulated by the manufacturer defendants for Plaintiffs’ injuries. Plaintiffs allege their child died after coming into contact with the medication after Priscilla applied it as instructed. Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action for products liability-related claims, wrongful death, and negligence.  

      The court issued a stay of the entire action on August 25, 2014, pending the outcome of a related criminal matter. The court reinstated the action on November 9, 2022, as Plaintiffs received notice that the criminal proceedings were dismissed. (M.O. 11/9/22.)

                                                                                               II.        ARGUMENTS

A.     Motion filed January 17, 2025

      Plaintiffs move to unseal criminal records related to Case No. 14ZF0335 People v. Kareem Ahmed, et al. and 16CF1351 People v. Kareem Ahmed, et al. both of which were filed in the Orange County Superior Court. Plaintiffs contend that the criminal defendants were indicted for the compounding, manufacturing, distribution, and prescribing of the compounded medication at issue in this case.

      Plaintiffs argue that the criminal matters were dismissed in 2016, and the court sealed the entire criminal case files. Plaintiffs have not been able to obtain records despite Plaintiffs’ discovery efforts. Plaintiffs have no other means of investigation unless the criminal records are unsealed.

B.     Opposition filed March 18, 2025

      Defendant, Tustin Community Pharmacy, Inc. dba Healthcare Pharmacy (Pharmacy) argues that Plaintiffs are seeking relief in the wrong court. This court cannot substitute its judgment for the Orange County court. Plaintiffs did not serve the motion on the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA), who is a party in the criminal actions.

      Defendants, Kareem Ahmed and Landmark Medical Management, also oppose the motion on grounds the criminal records contain privileged information and/or the fruit of the poisonous tree. Plaintiffs did not serve the OCDA. The motion should be brought before the court that issued the sealing order.

C.     No reply brief has been filed.

                                                                                                III.       DISCUSSION

      With certain exceptions, “[a]s a general rule, a trial judge cannot overturn the order of another trial judge.”  (In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1081.) The Court finds that this Court lacks the authority to unseal court records of the Orange County Superior Court, and that Plaintiff must petition the Orange County Superior Court.  In Short, the sealed record must not be unsealed except on order of the court that originally sealed it. Any

party or member of the public may move, apply, or petition to unseal a record, but the motion

must be filed with the court that entered the original sealing orders (Cal.Rules of Court, Rule

2.551; See In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068.)   Moreover, there is no dispute that the records sought by Plaintiffs involve a criminal matter in the Orange County Superior Court, as Plaintiffs attempted to subpoena the records from the OCDA, a party to the criminal matter. (Mot. Ex. A.) A motion to unseal must be served on all parties. (Cal. Rules of Superior Court, Rule 2.551 subd. (h)(2). The proof of service to the motion does not reflect that Plaintiffs served the OCDA.

                                                                                              IV.       CONCLUSION

      For these reasons, the motion to unseal criminal records is DENIED.