Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV34806, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34806    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Randy Rangel’s Motion for Production of “Pitchess” Documents

            Plaintiff Randy Rangel moves for an order compelling defendant City of Los Angeles to produce six categories of peace officer personnel 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.)

Plaintiff meets his burden for the first four categories of records, which concern investigations into: (1) the allegations of this lawsuit, (2) plaintiff’s complaint about another officer using excessive overtime, (3) plaintiff’s complaint of retaliation, and (4) complaints by other officers against plaintiff. 

In this case, plaintiff alleges defendant retaliated against him for complaining about purported excessive overtime by Sgt. Humberto Najera.  (Nair Decl., ¶ 3.)  The investigations into his complaint about Najera and his complaint for resulting retaliation are material.  The latter complaint parallels the allegations plaintiff makes in this action.  Records about defendant’s investigation of it will facilitate plaintiff’s ascertainment of facts and a fair trial.  Plaintiff shows good cause to discover these records. 

Plaintiff also alleges that, in retaliation for his complaints, Sgt. Najera and Lt. II Leonard Perez initiated their own internal complaint against plaintiff.  (Nair Decl., ¶ 3.)  For the same reasons, the investigation into that complaint is material, and plaintiff shows good cause to discover it. 

Defendant argues these categories of records improperly include the “raw” investigation file and not the final completed investigation.  (Opp., pp. 5-6.)  Documents “reflecting solely the investigating officer’s ‘conclusions,’ defined to mean the ‘thought processes of, and factual inferences and deductions drawn by, an officer investigating a complaint, concerning such matters as the credibility of witnesses or the significance, strength, or lack of evidence’ ” may be protected from disclosure.  (Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 1089.) 

Defendant’s reliance on Haggerty is misplaced.  “The analysis of relevancy in the Pitchess context must be on a case-by-case basis, rather than on a one-size-fits-all approach.”  (Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088.)  In Haggerty, the plaintiff sued for excessive force.  (Id. at p. 1082.)  The court held, “There is nothing contained in the officer’s subjective impressions of the facts found during the investigation that would be admissible at trial or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Ibid.) 

Here, plaintiff alleges retaliation and discrimination.  In an excessive force case, the Internal Affairs investigator’s conclusions (i.e., whether the investigator found the level of force excessive) are irrelevant.  That is a question for the jury.  Retaliation and discrimination, however, require proof of motive—which is subject.  Plaintiff needs to prove that defendant altered the terms and conditions of his employment because of his complaints about other officers or because of his disability.  Evidence of the investigators’ subjective “conclusions” therefore may be relevant and admissible at trial.

Plaintiff meets his burden for the fifth and sixth categories of records: complaints of discrimination or retaliation against Lt. II Perez and Sgt. Najera.  In this action, plaintiff must show he was subjected to adverse employment actions because of his disability or in retaliation for whistleblowing.  “[M]e-too evidence” can be “probative of” a defendant’s discriminatory “intent” and therefore admissible under Evidence Code section 1101(b).  (Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 114.)  Even if the resulting evidence is ultimately not admissible, requesting these categories of records “may lead to discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 658.)  Moreover, a stipulated protective order can adequately protect Perez’s and Najera’s privacy rights.  

Disposition

Plaintiff Randy Rangel’s motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is granted. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order within 15 days.

Defendant City of Los Angeles is ordered to present all potentially relevant documents responsive to plaintiff’s requests 1 through 6 to the court within 30 days.  

The court will hold an in camera hearing to review the records on _________________ at 10:00 a.m.