Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV15646, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15646    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Angel Gonzalez filed this action for employment discrimination against Defendant County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant passed him over for promotion based on his status as a military veteran.

            On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Bertha Mendez. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination . . . or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Bertha Mendez is the director of the Probation Department where Plaintiff applied for a promotion. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Ms. Mendez was the one who interviewed Plaintiff and allegedly expressed concerns over Plaintiff’s military status. (Ibid.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to depose Ms. Mendez.

            Based on the record of correspondence between the parties and the issues raised in Defendant’s concurrent Pitchess motion, the primary issue appears to be Defendant’s inability to defend the deposition of Ms. Mendez without first obtaining Plaintiff’s personnel records. The Court has concurrently ruled on Defendant’s Pitchess motion. Thus, the deposition may proceed.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is GRANTED. Bertha Mendez shall appear for deposition on __________________, 2025. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.

BACKGROUND

            On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Angel Gonzalez filed this action for employment discrimination against Defendant County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant passed him over for promotion based on his status as a military veteran.

            On December 27, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel the discovery of Plaintiff’s personnel records. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 13, 2025. Defendant filed its reply on January 16, 2025.

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

            Defendant seeks to use the following information from Plaintiff’s personnel file:

a.     Any records concerning disciplinary action beginning in 2015 to present taken against Plaintiff for any reason that is retained in his performance management and/or personnel file;

b.     Any and all documents concerning Plaintiff’s performance evaluations and assessment for promotability;

c.     All personnel records pertaining to Plaintiff’s attendance, including all absences related to his military membership in the California Air National Guard Reserve;

d.     All promotion application(s) submitted by Plaintiff and reasons why he was not selected for the respective promotion, including for the promotion to Supervising Deputy Probation Officer;

e.     Any complaints by Plaintiff to the County and the County’s subsequent investigation(s); and

f.      Any records regarding Plaintiff’s compensation and benefits.

(DeYoung Decl. ¶ 6.)

            According to defense counsel, the records are necessary for the following reasons. “The information and records sought to be used are essential to the County’s affirmative defenses as to the business judgment rule as it relates to Plaintiff’s qualifications to promote to Supervising Deputy Probation Officer.” (DeYoung Decl. ¶ 7.) Additionally, “[t]hese records are essential to demonstrate the primary cause for Plaintiff’s past and future loss of earnings claims.” (Id., ¶ 8.) This sufficiently demonstrates good cause for the discovery of Plaintiff’s personnel records.

            Plaintiff argues that production should be limited to the five years preceding the alleged incidents. However, records from throughout Plaintiff’s employment may be relevant to Defendant’s employment decision, not just those from five years ago. Plaintiff claims that Evidence Code section 1045 limits production to five years. Section 1045 contains no such limitation.   

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is GRANTED. The Court will conduct an in camera hearing in accordance with statutory requirements. Production shall be subject to a protective order.