Case Number: BC660422 Hearing Date: June 28, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Jane Doe CV, et al. v. Irwindale Police Department, et al. (BC660422 R/T BC578440 and BC623450)

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE OFFICER RECORDS

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Jane Doe CV and Jane Doe CA

Respondent: Defendant, City of Irwindale

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK; Reply timely but the method of service is not listed

Plaintiffs allege that they were sexually abused as minors by their Irwindale Police Explorer Advisor Deputy Daniel Camerano (“Camerano”). On 5/8/17, plaintiffs filed their complaint, asserting causes of action therein against Defendants Irwindale Police Department, The City of Irwindale, Camerano, Learning for Life, Inc., and DOES 1-100 for:

1. Negligence

2. Childhood Sexual Abuse

On 8/24/17, Camerano’s default was entered. The Final Status Conference is set for 7/30/18. A jury trial is set for 8/7/18.

Plaintiffs Jane Doe CV and Jane Doe CA (“plaintiffs”) move for an order to obtain the personnel records of former officer, Daniel Camerano (“Camerano”), including records maintained related to investigations of sexual misconduct complaints against him, or information from those records that indicate defendants knew he was an unfit agent, such as:

1. Any information indicating the agency knew of Camerano’s sexual abuse of plaintiffs and/or other minors between from 2005 or later;

2. Any information related to any of Camerano’s prior sexual misconduct investigations, sexual misconduct allegations, sexual misconduct complaints, or sexual misconduct incidents and how they were addressed from 2005 or later;

3. Any disciplinary actions related to the Explorer Program such as re-training or removal from position from 2005 or later;

4. Any information indicating the Irwindale Police Department’s concealed [sic] that Camerano was or may have been sexually abusing minors, including plaintiffs from 2005 or later;

5. Any information that indicates a failure to supervise or enforce the Explorer Program rules, including any information that indicates that the Irwindale Police Department officials were aware of Camerano’s violations of rules during ride-alongs and information indicating that defendants allowed Camerano to come into contact with minors without supervision from 2005 or later;

6. Any information related to the reason for Camerano’s removal from position as advisor for the Explorer Program in or around 2009; and

7. Any information related to the scope of Camerano’s duties and responsibilities as advisor for the Police Explorer Program from 2005 or later.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS:

Declaration of Courtney Kiehl:

1-6. Overruled. The exhibits are not being considered for the truth of the matters asserted therein, but to determine whether plaintiffs have provided a specific factual scenario supporting a plausible factual scenario.

“In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as ‘Pitchess motions’ (after our decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 C.3d 531) through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.83 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045. The Penal Code provisions define ‘personnel records’ (Pen. Code, § 832.8) and provide that such records are ‘confidential’ and subject to discovery only pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Evidence Code. (Pen. Code, § 832.7.) Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 set out the procedures for discovery in detail…section 1043, subdivision (a) requires a written motion and notice to the governmental agency which has custody of the records sought, and subdivision (b) provides that such motion shall include, inter alia, ‘(2) A description of the type of records or information sought; and (3) Affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that such governmental agency identified has such records or information from such records.’ City of Santa Cruz v. Mun. Court (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 74, 81-83 (emphasis added).

“A finding of ‘good cause’ under section 1043, subdivision (b) is only the first hurdle in the discovery process. Once good cause for discovery has been established, section 1045 provides that the court shall then examine the information ‘in chambers’ in conformity with section 915…, and shall exclude from disclosure several enumerated categories of information, including: (1) complaints more than five years old, (2) the ‘conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint …’ and (3) facts which are ‘so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.’ (§ 1045, subd. (b).).” Id. at p. 83 (emphasis theirs).

“In addition to the exclusion of specific categories of information from disclosure, section 1045 establishes general criteria to guide the court’s determination and insure that the privacy interests of the officers subject to the motion are protected. Where the issue in litigation concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency, the statute requires the court to ‘consider whether the information sought may be obtained from other records … which would not necessitate the disclosure of individual personnel records.’ (§ 1045, subd. (c).) The law further provides that the court may, in its discretion, ‘make any order which justice requires to protect the officer or agency from unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression.’ (§ 1045, subd. (d), italics added.) And, finally, the statute mandates that in any case where disclosure is permitted, the court ‘shall … order that the records disclosed or discovered shall not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.’ (§ 1045, subd. (e), italics added.).” Id.

“As statutory schemes go the foregoing is a veritable model of clarity and balance. Section 1043 clearly requires a showing of ‘good cause’ for discovery in two general categories: (1) the ‘materiality’ of the information or records sought to the ‘subject matter involved in the pending litigation,’ and (2) a ‘reasonable belief’ that the governmental agency has the ‘type’ of information or records sought to be disclosed. (§ 1043, subd. (b).).” Id. “A showing of good cause is measured by ‘relatively relaxed standards’ that serve to ‘insure the production’ for trial court review of ‘all potentially relevant documents.’ (Ibid.)” Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016.

Plaintiffs have shown “good cause” with respect to the materiality of the information or records sought. Plaintiffs here allege that they were sexually molested as minors from 2008-2010 by Camerano, their Police Explorer Advisor, for the Irwindale Police Department. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 17 and 18). Both plaintiffs were born in 1992. (Id., ¶¶ 17 & 18). Plaintiffs allege that for several years leading up to, during and after his abuse of plaintiffs, Camerano sexually abused other girls participating in the Irwindale Police Department’s Police Explorer Program (“Explorer Program”). (Id., ¶ 7). They allege that, during the course of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s investigation, numerous female Explorers reported that Camerano had sexually abused or sexually harassed them. (Id., ¶ 8). Plaintiffs allege that Camerano, in fact, has been criminally convicted of molesting two underage girls when they were minors and participants in the Explorer Program and that he was sentenced and began serving a state prison sentence for that abuse in January 2015. (Id., ¶ 5).

Plaintiffs allege that Camerano’s abuse of plaintiffs and other girls were known or should have been known by employees of the Irwindale Police Department. (Id., ¶ 7). They allege that Camerano’s abuse of minor female Explorers occurred during Explorer activities including Ride-Alongs as well as in the Irwindale Police Station. (Id.). Plaintiffs allege that Camerano would routinely have plaintiffs or other girls go one on one with him during Ride-Alongs. (Id., ¶ 9). They allege that Camerano also had girls accompany him alone from group meetings to retrieve equipment for the other Explorers. (Id.). They allege that in January 2013, Jane Doe CB came forward to report that Camerano had sexually molested her. (Id., ¶ 8). Plaintiffs allege that before Camerano’s abuse of plaintiffs ended, a male Police Explorer complained to Irwindale Police about Camerano’s conduct with underage female Explorers, which resulted in Camerano being removed from his position as Police Explorer advisor for a few months. (Id., ¶ 10). Plaintiffs allege that, during that time, a video camera was installed just outside the women’s locker room facing the file room, the room Camerano had been taking an underage female Explorer to and sexually molesting 3-4 times per month. (Id.). They allege that Camerano was again made Explorer advisor after this temporary absence. (Id.).

Plaintiffs, inter alia, allege that defendants knew or reasonably should have known of Camerano’s dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or that he was an unfit agent and breached their duty of care to plaintiffs by allowing Camerano to come into contact with them without supervision and by failing to adequately supervise or negligently retaining him. (Id., ¶¶ 29 & 30). They allege, inter alia, that defendants also breached their duty of care to plaintiffs by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny facts about Camerano and failed to tell or concealed from plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ parents, guardians, or other law enforcement officials that Camerano was or may have been sexually abusing minors. (Id., ¶ 30).

Plaintiffs’ counsel has attached a copy of Camerano’s Felony Complaint for Arrest Warrant, as well as exerpts from his Plea Hearing held 12/5/14 (Kiehl Decl., ¶¶ 4 & 5, Exhibits “3” & “4”). She has attached excerpts of Jane Doe CB’s deposition testimony, wherein she testified, inter alia, that Camerano started sexually abusing her within a month or two after she started the Explorer program (Id., ¶ 3, Exhibit “2,” 67:2-24), that Sergeant Avila’s desk was positioned so that he would be able to see Camerano and Jane Doe CB go into a room by themselves (Id., ¶ 3, 65:9-24), that line officers saw them go into the locker room (Id., 64:13-16 and 65:4-8), that Explorer Julian Gomez (“Gomez”) had told his cousins, Explorer Xavier Avila (“Explorer Avila”) and Cadet Diaz, that Camerano was sexually abusing another minor female Explorer (Id., 61:5-62:22), that she had understood that Camerano “took it upon himself to step down” as Explorer advisor because Gomez had threatened to tell one of their sergeants that Camerano was sexually abusing an Explorer (Id., 59:25-61:20), that Camerano returned as the officer advisor roughly six months later (Id., 59:5-24), that she had confided to Explorer Avila that she was being abused and that he “knew that that would be going on because he’s done it to other girls” (Id., 62:25-63:7), that Camerano would engage in sexual abuse with her in the filing room and during ride-alongs (Id., 98:20-23 and 103:8-21), and that Camerano used to kiss her in the Explorer room before cameras were installed (Id., 120:14-18). She has attached excerpts from a 1/30/13 witness interview of Plaintiff Jane Doe CV with District Attorney Renee Chang (“Chang”), wherein Jane Doe CV reported Camerano making flirtatious remarks and texts to her when she was a minor and attempting to kiss her once after a work meeting. (Id., ¶ 6, Exhibit “5”). Plaintiff’s counsel also has attached excerpts from a 3/31/14 witness interview of Plaintiff Jane Doe CR with Chang, wherein Plaintiff Jane Doe CR testified that Camerano groped her during their first ride-along together and sent her inappropriate texts. (Id., ¶ 7, Exhibit “6”).

Plaintiffs have set forth a reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the type of information or records sought to be disclosed. Although the foregoing testimony rendered by Jane Doe CB, Jane Doe CV, and Jane Doe CR does not reflect that any actual complaints were made to the Irwindale Police Department about Camerano’s conduct, it certainly makes it plausible that additional acts of similar misconduct by Camerano may have been reported.

The court will schedule an in camera review of Camerano’s personnel records. The records review shall be limited to the five-year period preceding the alleged misconduct in these actions.