Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV22768, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22768 Hearing Date: January 24, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiffs Estate of Valentina Orellana Peralta, Soledad Peralta and Juan Pablo Orellana Larenas’s Motion for Discovery Records
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Estate of Valentina Orellana Peralta (“Estate”), Soledad Peralta (“Soledad”) and Juan Pablo Orellana Larenas (“Larenas”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), William Dorsey Jones Jr. (“Jones”) and Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC (“Burlington”) for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On August 25, 2022, the City filed an answer. On October 17, 2022, Dorsey filed an answer.
On December 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Discovery Records to be heard on January 24, 2023. On January 10, 2023, the City filed an opposition. On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 11, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiffs request the Court order the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Sherrif Department (“LASD”) to make available the following records: all photographs taken of the subject locations from the date of the incident through present, all police/investigation reports related to the incident, all documents relating to the homicide investigation of the incident, all records of statements and interviews made following the subject incident, all recordings or statements by Jones, all recording or statements by LAPD employees present at the time of the incident, all photographs and videos relating to the incident, all documents identifying command staff personnel at the time of the incident, electronically stored information relating to the incident, all documents regarding DNA found at the subject store, autopsy reports and photographs relating to decedent, crime scene reports, correspondence from the district attorney regarding the subject incident, body camera video records, Jones’s personnel file, and all documents pertaining to Jones’s hiring, job performance, disciplinary record, POST, training in the use of force and weapons.
The City 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
Plaintiffs’ written motion complies with the basic requirements for a Pitchess motion. It identifies that Plaintiff is seeking discovery controlled by LAPD 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. Plaintiffs’ claim allegedly stems from the negligence of LAPD’s employee, Jones, who shot and killed Decedent while responding to 911 calls from Burlington’s subject location. The requested documents are tailored to records of Jones’ job performance and training or reports and records stemming from the subject incident, by in large. The only exceptions to this are correspondence from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and the list of command staff personnel at the time of the incident.
The Court finds that the request for correspondence from the District Attorney is improper; it is not a personnel record and is likely subject to attorney-client privilege. The Court denies the motion as to this request.
The City asserts that Plaintiffs are not entitled to receive the summary portion of the Force Investigation Division (“FID”) reports and the compelled statements and personnel complaints. It notes that some of the information contained in these reports extends beyond the standard 5-year period the LAPD must maintain records. The City argues that unfettered release of the information contained in the FID reports is potentially harmful as it violates individual officers’ rights and potentially puts the officers giving statements at risk. It also notes that Plaintiffs’ office may not properly handle these, resulting in a leak of information.
The Court does not find this to be good cause not to grant these requests; instead, the Court rules that Defendants produce the requested documents for an in-camera review, in which the Court will determine what must and must not be disclosed to Plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs Estate of Valentina Orellana Peralta, Soledad Peralta and Juan Pablo Orellana Larenas’s Motion for Discovery Records is GRANTED, in part. The Court orders the records be produced for the Court’s in-camera review by February 15, 2023. This includes all requested records, except for communications with the district attorney’s office, the request for which 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.