Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV33466, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33466 Hearing Date: September 13, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar
No.
Huyhn vs. City of West Covina, et. al., Case No. 22STCV33466
Tentative Ruling re:
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery
Defendant City of West Covina (Defendant) moves for an order pursuant to Evidence
Code sections 1043 and 1045 for the
production of documents from the Custodian of Records for the City of
West Covina and City of West Covina Police Department (WCPD). The unopposed motion is granted.
A party in a civil proceeding may gain
access to police officer records and citizen complaint records through the
procedures established in Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045. (See Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117
Cal.App.4th 1079, 1085 (Haggerty).)
Evidence Code section 1043 requires a
written motion and notice to the governmental agency which has custody of the
records sought, and affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or
disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter
involved in the pending litigation. It further states that no hearing for a
discovery motion shall be held without full compliance except upon a showing of
good cause for noncompliance or a waiver by the governmental agency with
custody of the records. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (d).) Once good cause is
established, Evidence Code section 1045 provides that the court must then
examine the information in chambers in conformity with Evidence Code section
915 and shall exclude from disclosure information consisting of complaints
concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or
transaction that is the subject of the litigation. (Evid. Code, § 1045.)
The moving party must demonstrate good
cause and set forth the materiality of the discovery sought. (Evid. Code, §
1043, subd. (b)(3).) This initial burden is a “relatively relaxed standard.” (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84.) Information has been deemed material where it “will
facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial” and general
allegations which establish some cause for discovery are sufficient. (Id. at pp. 84-85 [citations omitted].)
The motion 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.” (Evidence Code § 1043, subd. (b)(3).)
Declarations by counsel on information and belief are sufficient to show the
materiality of the information sought in personnel files. (Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, 59; Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 25
Cal.4th 1011, 1026.)
Defendant requests production of two
sets of documents:
(1)
The
WCPD Internal Affairs investigation, IA# 2021-01, including the report,
findings, supporting documentation, supplemental reports, audio, video, and
photographs, concerning Plaintiff’s on-duty vehicle accident on January 5,
2021;
(2)
Plaintiff’s general personnel file, including all
training, evaluation, and disciplinary documents.
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against him on the basis of
race and sexual orientation. Plaintiff’s counsel explains in his declaration
that Plaintiff is a gay Chinese male who was employed by the West Covina Police
Department (WCPD) to translate Cantonese. (Koron Decl. ¶ 5a.) Beginning in
March 2020, around the onset of COVID-19, WCPD officers would routinely make
derogatory comments and jokes based on Plaintiff’s race and sexual orientation.
WCPD command did nothing to curtail the harassing conduct, despite Plaintiff’s
protests. (Id. ¶ 5b-f.)
On January 5, 2021, Plaintiff hit a
bench with his patrol vehicle, causing minor damage. (Id. ¶ 5g.)
Plaintiff reported the damage to his supervisor when he first noticed it,
approximately 34 minutes after the incident. (Ibid.) The WCPD used this
accident as pretext to suspend, then terminate Plaintiff’s employment, claiming
that Plaintiff was dishonest and tried to cover up the collision by not timely
reporting it. (Id. ¶ 5i.) On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant
with a Government Claim and filed a Complaint with the DFEH. Shortly
thereafter, WCPD reinstated Plaintiff’s employment. (Id. ¶ 5j.) However,
on July 18, 2022, WCPD again terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff then
served Defendant with another Government Claim and filed another Complaint with
the DFEH. (Id. ¶ 5m.)
The motion is unopposed. Defendant
has shown good cause for in camera review of the documents, as material and
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.