Case Number: BC488483 Hearing Date: May 02, 2014 Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF M. TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Friday, May 2, 2014
Calendar No: 4
Case Name: Cordero v. County of Los Angeles
Case No.: BC488483
Motion: Motion for Production of “Pitchess” Documents
Moving Party: Plaintiff William R. Cordero
Responding Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Pitchess motion is denied.
________________________________________

Background –
On 7/18/12, Plaintiff William R. Cordero filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles for retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 arising out of his temporary reassignment from duty with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LACSD”) on Catalina Island after allegedly complaining about conduct by a superior, Captain Jeff Donahue. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered retaliation after complaining about Captain Donahue taking an inmate golfing to provide Captain Donahue golfing lessons. On 1/16/14, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Trial is set for 10/6/14; FSC for 9/18/14.

Pitchess Motion –
Pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (see also Evid. Code § 1043), Plaintiff requests documents relating to any and all writings of the Intake Specialist Unit and the Equity Unit regarding any reports or complaints made by Plaintiff from 2011 to the present.

Plaintiff submits that Defendant’s discovery responses revealed that Plaintiff’s complaint about Captain Donahue and his treatment afterwards were referred to the Intake Specialist Unit and the Equity Unit resulting in a determination that the allegations did not rise to the level of a formal equity investigation. See Schabloski Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 2 p. 3:18-4:3 (supplemental responses to employment form interrogatories set two), Ex. 3 [COLA 10] (describing the Intake Specialist Unit and the Equity Unit).

A Pitchess motion is required when “discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to [Penal Code § 832.5 (concerning records of investigations of public complaints against peace officers)] or information from those records” (Evid. Code § 1043(a)). The Court notes that on 4/26/13, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion that sought documents from the personnel records of several officers related to Defendant’s investigations into Plaintiff’s allegations. See Ruling dated 4/26/13. Plaintiff’s current Pitchess motion does not seek documents from personnel records or records of investigations of public complaints against specified officers. Instead, Plaintiff seeks the production of documents as to the investigation of the Intake Specialist Unit and the Equity Unit concerning Plaintiff’s allegations. These documents are not properly the subject of a Pitchess motion.

The Reply seems to infer that this motion is necessary because defendants have failed to identify officers from whose files the requested information may be gleaned. However, this is not the function of a Pitchess motion, but one of a motion to compel further responses if objections were raised to the discovery modality involved.

The motion is denied.