Case Number: BC501051 Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Dept: 56
Case Name: Ureta, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
Case No.: BC501051
Motion: Pitchess Motion
Tentative Ruling: Motion is granted in part
Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles and various sheriff deputies, alleging causes of action for (1) violation of CC §§ 51.7, 52, and 52.1; (2)-(4) violation of 42 USC § 1983; (5)-(6) negligence; (7) negligent hiring, training, and supervision; (8) assault and battery, (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (10) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs move for discovery of personnel records for Deputies Raymond Mendoza, Michael Hernandez, Rodney Gutierrez, and Anthony Forlano pursuant to EC §§1043-47 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
Notice –
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ motion is defective because they failed to give written notice to the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records, as required by EC §1043(a). This objection is overruled. The motion was served on Los Angeles County Counsel, which generally represents the Sheriff’s Department and specifically represents the individual deputies who are defendants in this action. This is sufficient.
Good Cause for Disclosure –
In accordance with PC §832.7 and §832.8, information contained in a peace officer’s personnel file is confidential and may not be disclosed except through discovery permitted by a “Pitchess motion” under EC §§1043-47. Among other things, a Pitchess motion must include a declaration showing good cause for disclosure, demonstrating a specific factual scenario or plausible factual foundation that the records are material to the subject matter of the pending litigation. See EC 1043(b)(3); Warrick v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1021. This procedure takes precedence over general discovery rules in civil litigation. See Davis v. City of Sacramento (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 393, 400.
For Mendoza, Hernandez, Gutierrez and Forlano, Plaintiff seeks records for a 10 year period preceding the 2/14/11 arrest, concerning 1) any investigations and disciplinary actions; 2) investigation and discipline concerning the 2/14/11 arrest; 3) tactical deficiencies; 4) use of force; 5) discharge of firearms; 6) complaints for excessive force, civil rights violations, dishonesty, or similar misconduct; 7) complaints for racial discrimination; 8) training records; 9) performance reviews and evaluations; and 10) hiring files. For Forlano, Plaintiff also seeks records for 1) other shootings at which he was present; 2) disciplinary actions for other shootings at which he was present; 3) his return to duty following any shootings; and 4) writings reflecting a consistent course of conduct in which he justified a shooting by stating that the suspect had a weapon.
The Court has considered the declarations and argument presented by the parties, and has determined that Plaintiffs have established good cause for production of records relating to the following categories: Documents within the period 2/14/06 through the present, concerning Mendoza, Hernandez, Gutierrez or Forlano, and relating to complaints of excessive force, tactical deficiencies, officer involved shootings, civil rights violations, dishonesty, and similar misconduct.
Plaintiffs have not established good cause for disclosure of the remaining categories, which are not sufficiently related to the subject matter of this action. See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226 (good cause must be examined to preclude the possibility of a party “simply casting about for any helpful information”).
The Custodian of Records shall produce all potentially relevant documents within the foregoing categories for in camera review, which will be conducted with a court reporter supplied by counsel for the Custodian. The Court will examine the records to determine those records which are relevant and appropriate for production. See Mooc, supra 26 Cal.4th at 1229; EC §1045(b). Disclosure of complaints shall be limited to the date of the complaint and the names and contact information for complainants and witnesses. See City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Ct. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84 (“courts have generally refused to disclose verbatim reports or records of any kind from peace officer personnel files, ordering instead (as the municipal court directed here) that the agency reveal only the name address and phone number of any prior complainants and witnesses and the dates of the incidents in question”). A protective order will be issued pursuant to EC §1045(e).