Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV00093, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00093    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 74

Mariela Isabel Avila v. City of Irwindale, et al.

Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff Mariela Isabel Avila (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against City of Irwindale and former Chief of Police Ty Henshaw (Defendants).

            On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order to produce documents for inspection (Pitchess Motion).

LEGAL STANDARD

            Information contained in a peace officer’s personnel file is generally protected from discovery or disclosure. (Pen. Code, § 832.7.) There is a two-step procedure for securing disclosure of most peace officer personnel records. (Warrick v. Sup. Ct. (City of Los Angeles Police Dept.) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.)

            First, the party seeking disclosure must file a motion that identifies the peace officer, the agency in possession of the records, a description of the records, and who is seeking the records, as well as the time and place of the hearing. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(1).) Notice must be served in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), on the parties and the governmental agency that has the records. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a).) The motion must include a declaration showing good cause for disclosure of the records, setting forth the materiality of the records, and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the requested documents. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) The “good cause” declaration must be sufficiently specific. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.) The moving party need only show a plausible factual foundation for discovery (i.e. a scenario of officer misconduct that could have occurred). (Warrick v. Sup. Ct. (City of Los Angeles Police Dept.), supra, 35 Cal.4^th at p. 1026.) This is a relatively low threshold. (City of Santa Cruz v. Mun.Ct.. (Kennedy) (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83.)

            Second, if the court finds good cause, an in-camera hearing must be held. (Slayton v. Sup.Ct. (Slayton) (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 61.) After personally examining the records in camera, the trial court shall order disclosure of peace officer personnel records that are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation. (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4^th at p. 1226.) If disclosure is ordered, the court must also order that the disclosed information may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding under applicable law. (Alford v. Sup.Ct. (People) (2003) Cal.4th 1033, 1039-1040.) The court may also issue a protective order. (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

            In her motion, Plaintiff has identified the peace officer and the agency in possession of the records: Defendant Ty Henshaw and Non-Party Bell Police Department. (Motion, p. 6.) In addition, Plaintiff has furnished a description of the records sought: complaints that Defendant Ty Henshaw engaged in sexual misconduct, his performance reviews, and his promotion application materials. (Motion, pp. 6-7.) However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she provided Non-Party Bell Police Department with written notice, as required by Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a). Rather, the proof of service only indicates that Plaintiff served counsel for Defendants Ty Henshaw and City of Irwindale. Moreover, the proof of service on Non-Party Bell Police Department needed to be filed 16 court-days before the hearing, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

CONCLUSION

              The court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

            Plaintiff shall give notice.