Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV31583, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31583 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Cherryl Jackson’s Motion for Discovery Records
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff Cherryl Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) for negligence, wrongful death and survival action.
On October 21, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.
On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery Records to be heard on December 14, 2022. On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 23, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court order the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Sherrif Department (“LASD”) to produce the following records within 15 days of the hearing on the motion: maintenance records for the subject vehicle for 5 years prior to the subject collision, all materials relating to the policies of maintenance and care of vehicles by LASD employees at the relevant time, all materials relating to the policies related to driver training of LASD employees at the relevant time, all materials relating to the work schedule of the driver in the month prior to the collision, any materials relating to the driver’s disciplinary or performance history for 2 years prior to the incident, any internal affairs investigations based on the subject collision and all LASD investigations based on the highway collision giving rise to Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Defendant requests the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under California law, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, a peace or custodial officer’s personnel records are confidential and protected from discovery or disclosure unless a party follows certain statutory procedures. (Pen. Code, § 832.7(a) [general rule]; Pen. Code, § 832.7(b) [exceptions]; see Pen. Code, § 832.8 [“Definitions”].) The protection of a peace officer’s personnel records extends to any information of a private nature, including complaints and investigations of the officer and information concerning the officer personally. (Ibid.)
In 1978, the California Legislature codified the procedure for obtaining such confidential peace officer personnel records in what has become known as a "Pitchess” motion or petition based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531. (City of Hemet v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1422-1423.) The Legislature enacted these privileges and procedures in Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045. (Id.) The statutory scheme for obtaining disclosure or discovery of confidential peace officer personnel records applies equally to both civil and criminal cases. (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1085.) Evidence Code section 1043 et seq. constitute “the exclusive means” by which a litigant in a civil lawsuit, such as this one, may obtain discovery of confidential peace officer personnel records. (City of Hemet, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at 1423.)
For a civil litigant to initiate discovery of confidential peace officer personnel records, the civil litigant must first file a written motion, or what is more commonly referred to as a “Pitchess” motion. (Evid. Code, § 1043(a).) Notice of the motion must be served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 on both the parties to the civil lawsuit as well as the governmental agency having custody and control of the records. (Id.) The written motion must include the following:
Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party seeking discovery or disclosure, the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought, the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard.
(2) A description of the type of records or information sought.
(3) Affidavits 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); see Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019).
Upon proper filing of the written motion and affidavits, the court will conduct a hearing in open court to determine whether good cause exists pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b). (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Brandon) (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 9.) At this stage, the party seeking disclosure or discovery must “show ‘good cause’ for discovery in these two general categories: (1) the materiality of the requested information to the pending litigation, and (2) a ‘reasonable belief’ that the governmental agency has the information the defendant seeks to discover.” (Id. at 9-10 (citing City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s written motion complies with the basic requirements for a Pitchess motion. It identifies that Plaintiff is seeking discovery controlled by LASD for this particular case, with the time, date and location provided. There is a description of the type of records sought, and an affidavit setting forward good cause for the requested documents. Plaintiff’s claim allegedly stems from the negligence of Defendant’s employee, Jose Mario Barrera (“Barrera”) who was driving a sheriff's bus when he struck Decedent, resulting in his death. The requested documents are all tailored to either relevant records of the subject bus, relevant records of Barrera, departmental policies that may have influenced either Barrera or the subject bus, and any investigation conducted by LASD into the subject accident.
Defendant argues that requests 1-3 are not personnel records, but rather are maintenance and care records or policies regarding these topics. The Court agrees. These are not proper for a Pitchess motion, and instead may be sought via a Request for Production of Documents.
The Court finds request 4 to be vague and overbroad.
The Court finds request 5 to be overbroad and invasive of Mr. Barrera’s privacy.
Defendant finally argues that requests 6-7 seek privileged information, citing Haggerty v. Superior Court (Guindazola) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, which held that the investigating officers’ analysis and conclusions were considered privileged and irrelevant. The Court agrees.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Cherryl Jackson’s Motion for Discovery Records is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.