Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV26025, Date: 2023-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26025    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff Rinaldo Alberico filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles, asserting causes of action for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent. Plaintiff alleges that he was fired after reporting numerous instances of other deputies using racial slurs against him.

            On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to obtain personnel records pertaining to himself and Deputy Errol Payne. Defendant filed its opposition on November 27, 2023. Plaintiff filed his reply on December 1, 2023.

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

            Plaintiff has set forth good cause for the requested documents. Plaintiff is entitled to discover a potential history of discriminatory acts by the officer allegedly responsible for discriminating against him. (Orloff Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff is entitled to prove that he made multiple complaints of discrimination and that Defendant was aware of such. (Ibid.) Plaintiff is also entitled to documents showing if or how Defendant responded to reports of discrimination. (Id., ¶ 6, 9.) Plaintiff is entitled to records related to his own transfer and termination. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7, 10.) This meets the relatively low threshold for establishing good cause.

Defendant’s opposition does not identify any particular request as problematic or explain how, beyond arguing that the requests are generally overbroad as to time. The records will be limited to five years preceding the alleged wrongdoing. Prior complaints are also limited to those concerning discrimination and harassment based on race and age, the same types of discrimination alleged by Plaintiff.    

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion is GRANTED. Concerning Deputy Payne, production is limited to five years preceding the incidents in question, and prior complaints are limited to those concerning discrimination and harassment based on race and age.  Concerning Plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to copies of his personnel records involving his termination and reason for Plaintiff not being permitted to work in Court Services.

The Court will conduct an in-camera hearing in accordance with statutory requirements. The production shall be subject to a protective order.