Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV08782, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08782    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 6, 2022, Stephen Wilk (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) alleging discrimination based on age and whistleblower retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that he was disqualified from a promotion and demoted for purportedly failing to obtain the requisite training.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Pitchess motion to obtain records of Defendant’s investigations relating to Plaintiff’s purported policy violations.

LEGAL STANDARD

In general, the personnel records of peace officers are protected from discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. The exclusive means for obtaining these materials is through a Pitchess motion. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1605, 1611.) A Pitchess motion shall (1) identify 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 which has custody and control of the record, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard, (2) describe the type of records or information sought, and (3) present affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b).)

The standard of “good cause” required for Pitchess disclosure is “relatively relaxed” to “insure the production” for trial court review of “all potentially relevant documents.” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 179.) Good cause for discovery exists when the party shows (1) materiality to the subject matter of the pending litigation and (2) a reasonable belief that the agency has the type of information sought. (Becerrada v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 409, 413.) A sufficient threshold showing is established if the party seeking records demonstrates through affidavits a “plausible factual foundation” for how the records are material to the subject matter of the pending litigation. (Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655.)

If the trial court finds good cause for the discovery, it reviews the pertinent documents in chambers and discloses only that information falling within the statutorily defined standards of relevance. (Evid. Code, § 1045; Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1027.)

DISCUSSION

            Here, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel sufficiently sets forth good cause for the production sought. (Koron Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.) Plaintiff was removed from the MET Unit for purported policy violations. Plaintiff alleges that he was actually removed for discriminatory reasons. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to the requested information to show that Defendant’s reasons for demoting Plaintiff were pretextual, and to seek out pertinent witnesses.

            Defendant purports to oppose the motion on the grounds that the requests are not supported by good cause and that the requests are overbroad. However, Defendant’s points and authorities lacks any substantive discussion of the requests at issue. Instead, Defendants outline the law surrounding Pitchess motions, which is undisputed. As discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently established good cause for the records. The requests are not overbroad because they are confined to investigations regarding specific policy violations that Plaintiff was accused of committing, as well as investigations regarding Plaintiff’s removal from a specific unit.  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion is GRANTED. The Court will conduct an in-camera review in accordance with statutory requirements. The production shall be subject to a protective order.