Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV14870, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV14870 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff
Jane Doe 1’s Motion to Compel Discovery of Personnel Records of Sheriff’s
Deputy Daniel Acquilano
Plaintiff
Jane Doe 1 moves for an order compelling defendant County of Los Angeles to produce
eight categories of peace officer records.
Generally,
peace officer personnel records are confidential and are not disclosed in any
civil proceeding. (Pen. Code, §
832.7.) Penal Code § 832.8(a)(5) defines
“personnel records” to include “[c]omplaints, or investigations of complaints,
concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he
or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his
or her duties.”
Motions
for discovery of these records must include “[a]ffidavits 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 the governmental agency identified has the records or
information from the records.” (Evid.
Code, § 1043(b)(3).)
The “ ‘good cause’ requirement has two components. First, the movant must set forth ‘the
materiality’ of the information sought ‘to the subject matter involved in the
pending litigation.’ (Evid. Code, §
1043, subd. (b)(3).) The function of
this requirement is to ‘exclude[ ] requests for officer information that are
irrelevant to the pending charges.’
[Citation.] If the movant shows
that the request is ‘relevant to the pending charges, and explains how, the
materiality requirement will be met.’ ”
(Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court
(2019) 8 Cal.5th 28, 41.) “Second, the
‘good cause’ requirement obliges the movant to articulate ‘a “reasonable
belief” that the agency has the type of information sought.’ ” (Id. at p. 42.)
A
plaintiff’s “initial burden is a relatively relaxed standard. …
Information is material if it will facilitate the ascertainment of the
facts and a fair trial.” (Haggerty v.
Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1086 (Haggerty)
internal quotes and alterations omitted.)
“[T]he relevancy of an investigation of the incident that is the basis
for the lawsuit is ‘self-evident.’ ” (Id.
at p. 1087.)
Specific
Categories of Records
Plaintiff seeks discovery of the
following categories of records:
(1) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to
Defendant DANIEL ACQUILANO’s PERSONNEL FILE.”
(2) “Any and all DOCUMENTS memorializing,
discussing, mentioning or relating to any complaints and/or grievances about
and/or relating to Defendant DANIEL ACQUILANO whether formally filed or informally
made.”
(3) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to any
disciplinary actions relating to Defendant DANIEL ACQUILANO.”
(4) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to any
allegation, formal or informal, of misconduct, use of force, excess force,
inappropriate, unprofessional, unethical, biased, prejudicial, discriminatory,
retaliatory, or criminal behavior, or dishonesty, by Defendant DANIEL
ACQUILANO.”
(5) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to the
hiring process for defendant DANIEL ACQUILANO, including but not limited to,
any background checks conducted on defendant DANIEL ACQUILANO.”
(6) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to the
decision to place defendant DANIEL ACQUILANO at LHS during the time period of
the INCIDENT.”
(7) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS requested by any entity, party, or individual pursuant to a
Public Records Act request regarding any use of force by Defendant DANIEL
ACQUILANO.”
(8) “Any
and all DOCUMENTS memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to Defendant
DANIEL ACQUILANO’s use of force trainings.”
Plaintiff does not show good cause
for disclosing categories one and six. The
first category, Acquilano’s entire personnel file, is overly broad. A peace officer’s personnel file may include a
wide array of immaterial information, such as
performance evaluations, pay records, time records, and information
about work-related injuries. The other
requested categories include the material information that may be in Acquilano’s
personnel file.
Plaintiff does not show good cause
for disclosing the sixth category of records, documents regarding the decision
to place Acquilano at Lancaster High School.
Plaintiff “did not demonstrate a plausible factual scenario indicating
the relevance” of these records. (Riske
v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 662.) As plaintiff’s counsel states in his
declaration, the gravamen of this action is that plaintiff alleges Deputy
Acquilano used excessive force against her and that he did so because of her
race or color. (Goldstein Decl., ¶¶ 2,
7.) Plaintiff also alleges the County
negligently hired, retained, supervised, and trained Acquilano. But plaintiff’s moving papers and supporting
declaration do not address or explain the materiality of records on the
decision specifically to assign Acquilano to Lancaster High School, as opposed
to any other assignment available to Deputy Sheriffs.
Plaintiff shows good cause for
discovering parts of categories two and three.
Plaintiff meets her burden with respect to documents about complaints or
grievances and disciplinary actions against Acquilano related to the use of
force and to discrimination or bias.
Acquilano’s use of force and his intent in using force are central
issues in this case. As written, however,
these categories include any complaints or grievances and any disciplinary
actions. Such broad categories would
include immaterial information. For
example, a citizen’s complaint that Deputy Acquilano was driving unsafely would
have no relevance to this action. Similarly, a disciplinary action against
Acquilano for something like being late to work or taking excessive lunch
breaks would be immaterial. The court
will order limited disclosure of these categories: complaints and disciplinary
actions regarding use of force, bias, or discrimination.
Similarly,
plaintiff shows good cause for disclosing part of category four. “The
information sought must . . . be ‘requested with adequate specificity to
preclude the possibility that [the moving party] is engaging in a “fishing
expedition.” ’ ” (City of Santa Cruz
v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 85.) This category includes documents related to
allegations of “misconduct” and “inappropriate, unprofessional, unethical”
conduct. Including these generic terms
would constitute an improper fishing expedition. Moreover, these terms are so vague that they
would provide insufficient guidance on what records the County should provide
for in camera review. The court will
order limited disclosure of this category by striking the terms “misconduct,”
“inappropriate,” “unprofessional,” and “unethical.”
Plaintiff shows good cause for the fifth and eighth categories of
documents. Plaintiff alleges the County
negligently hired and trained Acquilano.
Records about the hiring process and use of force training are
material. Plaintiff demonstrates a
reasonable belief that the County possess such information.
Finally, plaintiff shows good cause for the seventh category of records:
documents requested under the Public Records Act about Acquilano’s use of
force. This category is appropriately
limited to information on use of force, which is a core issue in this case.
Protective
Order
With its opposition, the custodian
of records for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department submitted a proposed
protective order to limit the disclosure of any confidential records or information
produced. Plaintiff states she “is
amenable to [the] proposed protective order pertaining to all documents
produced in connection to this Motion.” (Reply,
p. 5.)
The court
finds a protective order appropriate.
The court will sign the proposed protective order.
Disposition
Plaintiff Jane
Doe 1’s motion to compel discovery of personnel records of Deputy Sheriff
Daniel Acquilano is granted in part.
Defendant
County of Los Angeles is ordered to present the court with all documents
in the following categories within 30 days:
(a) Documents
memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to any complaints or
grievances regarding defendant Daniel Acquilano’s use of excessive force, bias,
or discrimination;
(b)
Documents memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to any disciplinary
actions against defendant Daniel Acquilano involving use of excessive force,
bias, or discrimination;
(c)
Documents memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to any allegation,
formal or informal, of use of force, excess force, biased, prejudicial,
discriminatory, retaliatory, or criminal behavior, or dishonesty, by defendant Daniel
Acquilano;
(d)
Documents memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to the hiring
process for defendant Daniel Acquilano, including but not limited to background
checks conducted on him;
(e)
Documents requested by any entity, party, or individual pursuant to the Public
Records Act regarding any use of force by defendant Daniel Acquilano; and
(f) Documents
memorializing, discussing, mentioning or relating to defendant Daniel
Acquilano’s use of force trainings.
The court
will hold an in camera hearing to review the records on
_________________ at 10:00 a.m.