Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV00331, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00331    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF

PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS

Date:               4/27/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Anthoney Keller et al. v. 5.11, Inc. (21STCV00331)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant 5.11, Inc.’s Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant 5.11, Inc. seeks the disclosure of plaintiffs Anthoney Keller, Denos Amarantos, and Maurice Kwon’s personnel records pursuant to Penal Code § 832.5.

Prior to the instant motion, for each plaintiff, defendant subpoenaed the Los Angeles Police Department’s Police Discovery Unit for plaintiffs’ complete personnel files, including but not limited to the documents listed in attachments to the subpoenas. (Moss Decl. ¶ 5 & Att. 3 to Exs. E-G.) A Deputy City Attorney from the Police Discovery Section contended that the information sought in the subpoenas can only be obtained through a Pitchess motion. (Moss Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. H.)

“A showing of good cause must be based on a discovery request which is tailored to” plaintiffs’ claims. (See California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1021.)

Here, defendant largely fails to demonstrate how the requested discovery is relevant to plaintiffs’ personal injury claims. Defendant seeks the entirety of plaintiffs’ personnel files. Defendant maintains that plaintiffs are claiming past and future pain and suffering, medical costs, and lost earnings. (Moss Decl. ¶ 3 & Exs. B-D.) With respect to defendant’s request for plaintiffs’ employment applications or performance evaluations or employee reviews, the requests are not tailored to plaintiffs’ training with defendants’ battering ram and evaluations of plaintiffs’ usage of the battering ram. With respect to defendant’s requests for insurance records, worker’s compensation or disability records, and medical records, defendant makes no attempt to tailor the requests to the injuries that plaintiffs claim from using defendants’ battering ram. With respect to defendant’s requests for accident and incident reports and interoffice correspondence or notes, the requests are also not tailored based on plaintiffs’ use of defendants’ battering ram.

However, defendant demonstrates that plaintiffs are claiming past and future lost earnings. Defendant’s request for employment payroll records, “including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: earnings, actual pay stubs’, employer contributions, overtime on actual pay stubs,” as well as W-2s and 1099s, for each plaintiff is reasonably related to evaluating plaintiffs’ earnings claim. (Moss Decl. at 8:19-20.)

The motion is GRANTED IN PART with respect to plaintiffs’ compensation records requested in the subpoenas. The Court will conduct an in camera review to determine if any of the documents produced are relevant to this action. If the Court finds that relevant documents are to be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel, then in accordance with Evidence Code § 1045, documents that are required to be withheld by statute will not be produced.  The in camera review is set for _________________ at _______ in Department 72 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse).

Los Angeles Police Department’s Custodian of Records is ordered to bring the compensation records from 1/1/17 to present for plaintiff Anthoney Keller, 1/1/19 to present for plaintiff Denos Amarantos, and 1/1/19 to present for plaintiff Maurice Kwon as requested in the subpoenas on the day and time of this review. The Court will address any necessary protective orders during the in camera hearing.