Case Number: BC597955 Hearing Date: May 05, 2016 Dept: SEC

S.F. v. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.
CASE NO.: BC597955
HEARING: 05/05/16

#1
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff S.F.’s motion to compel the CITY OF DOWNEY/DOWNEY POLICE DEPARTMENT to release its investigative report on defendant Hitchcock is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 2025.480.

The report must be produced to plaintiff’s counsel no later than May 16, 2016.

Plaintiff S.F. is currently 18, and is suing for personal injuries resulting from alleged childhood sexual abuse. As alleged in the complaint, defendant BRANDON HITCHCOCK, a teacher at Downey High School, committed multiple acts of sexual abuse against plaintiff during her junior and senior years of high school. Comp., ¶3. Hitchcock was arrested on October 17, 2014. ¶36. It appears he pled guilty and was sentenced.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Downey Police Department to release its entire criminal file on Hitchcock and the investigation of his sexual abuse.

Plaintiff served a subpoena seeking the investigative file in December 2015. Motion, Exh. 1. Downey Police Department, which apparently did not received the subpoena until March 2016, sent a letter objecting to production absent court order. See Penal Code §§11167, 11167.5.

The City of Downey filed an opposition to the motion, noting that it objects to production because of potential third party’s privacy interests. See Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69 (finding a litigant not entitled to production of names and addresses of other people arrested on similar charges). Plaintiff, on the other hand, cites Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242 for the general proposition that witnesses’ identities and contact information are generally not protected from disclosure.

This case involves a sexual assault and the contents of the investigative report may include sensitive information regarding these third party witnesses, which distinguishes the present action from Puerto. The intrusion sought here is, at least potentially, more serious. On that point, plaintiff argues she knows of only one other student who came forward regarding Hitchcock’s inappropriate conduct. Plaintiff contends the privacy intrusion is outweighed by her compelling need for witness information and other evidence regarding Hitchcock’s misconduct. The Court is inclined to agree. Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted.