Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 22STCV31095 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

Pitchess/Vela Motion to Direct the City of Torrance to Produce Documents Relating to Custodial Officers Michael Venable, Tessi Jackson, and Romero Monreal

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7.c., and 7.d. The motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7.a., 7.b., 7.e., and 7.f. Defendant City of Torrance is ordered to produce by _______________ the following records for in camera inspection as to the identified custodial officers Michael Venable, Tessi Jackson, and Romero Monreal:

1. All investigative reports or documents, pertaining to City of Torrance Police Department Internal Affairs Investigation #PD2021-004, dated December 1, 2021, regarding Custodial Officer Personnel and related documents, attachments and recordings;

2. All investigative reports or documents, pertaining to City of Torrance Police Department Confidential Administrative Investigation 004, dated August 9, 2022, regarding Custodial Officer Personnel and related documents, attachments and recordings;

3. All City of Torrance Police Department Confidential Supplemental Administrative Investigation Reports relating to the subject incident, including but not limited to the supplemental report dated October 9, 2022 and all attachments and recordings.

b. All investigative reports or documents, pertaining to any City of Torrance investigations concerning Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal regarding any investigations for failure to supervise an inmate, or failure to evaluate or investigate an inmate’s medical or mental health condition, or failure to provide medical care, or involvement with the injury or death of an inmate.

e. All City of Torrance records regarding discipline imposed against Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal, during their employment with City of Torrance regarding for failure to supervise an inmate, or failure to evaluate or investigate an inmate’s medical or mental health condition, or failure to provide medical care, or involvement with the injury or death of an inmate.

f. All training records for Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal while employed by the City of Torrance.

On September 22, 2022, plaintiffs Maria Soto, Maritza Castro, Jesus Obeso, a minor through his GAL, and Jose Obeso, a minor through his GAL, filed a complaint against City of Torrance for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) wrongful death, (4) violation of Bane Act, (5) substantive due process (42 USC 1983), and (6) violation of Gov. Code §845.6—failure to provide immediate medical care.

On January 12, 2023, plaintiffs filed a FAC for (1) negligence, (2) wrongful death, (3) substantive due process, and (4) violation of Gov. Code §845.6.

“To initiate discovery [of the personnel files of police officers], the defendant must file a motion supported by affidavits showing ‘good cause for the discovery,’ first by demonstrating the materiality of the information to the pending litigation and second by ‘stating upon reasonable belief’ that the police agency has the records or information at issue. This two-part showing of good cause is a ‘relatively low threshold for discovery.’” Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1011, 1019 (citations omitted). “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 evidence.” Id.

Evidence Code §1043 states: “ (a) In any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records. . . . (b) The motion shall include all of the following:

(1) 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 which has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard.

(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. . . .”

“The affidavits may be on information and belief and need not be based on personal knowledge, but the information sought must be requested with sufficient specificity to preclude the possibility of a defendant’s simply casting about for any helpful information.” People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1216, 1226 (citation omitted). “This initial burden is a ‘relatively relaxed standard.’ Information is material if it will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial. A declaration of counsel on information and belief is sufficient to state facts to satisfy the ‘materiality component of that section.” Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4^th 1079, 1085-86 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

“[I]f a defendant has established good cause for the discovery, ‘the trial court proceeds to an in chambers examination of the records to determine whether they have any relevance to the issues presented in the current proceedings.’” Slayton v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal. App. 4^th 55, 60.

Plaintiffs request an order directing City of Torrance to produce the following records under the Pitchess procedures:

4. The complete personnel file of Custodial Officer Michael Venable while at City of Torrance.

5. The complete personnel file of Custodial Officer Tessi Jackson while at City of Torrance.

6. The complete personnel file of Custodial Officer Romero Monreal while at City of Torrance.

b. All investigative reports or documents, pertaining to any City of Torrance investigations concerning Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal;

c. All citizens’ complaints, whether sustained or not, made against Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal while employed by the City of Torrance, alleging excessive force, false imprisonment, fabricating probable cause, dishonesty, perjury, false arrest and detention.

d. All writings, supervisor notes, memorandums, letters, commendations, and “Performance Evaluations” of Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal during all of their employment with the City of Torrance.

e. All City of Torrance records regarding discipline imposed against Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal, during their employment with City of Torrance.

f. All training records for Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson and Monreal while employed by the City of Torrance.

In the FAC, plaintiffs allege that decedent Juan Obeso was a 30 year old male. FAC, ¶3. On October 8, 2021, at approximately 0840 hours, Officers M. Lassak and Brooks Wing responded to a suspicious person call in Torrance. Once Officer Wing arrived at the location, he observed and made contact with the decedent in a baker and detained him without incident. The employees at the location advised and warned Officer Wing that decedent ran inside the store and screamed that he needed water and described decedent’s behavior as “strange.” Once Officer Lassak arrived at the location, he observed and made contact with the reporting party who initially contacted the Torrance PD and stated that he observed decedent running out of the neighbor’s backyard acting erratic. The reporting party also informed Officer Lassak that once decedent fled from the residence, he entered a garbage truck that did not belong to him. The driver of the garbage truck informed Lassak that decedent’s behavior was strange. Id., ¶23.

Plaintiffs further allege that while at the scene, Officer Lassak spoke to decedent and observed that decedent’s pupils appeared to be pinpoint and non-reactive to light and decedent informed Lassak that he was allegedly under the influence of “crystal meth.” Decedent was unable to tell the officers where he was or where his vehicle was located. Based on Officer Lassak’s observations and decedent’s statements, Officer Lassak formed the opinion that decedent was under the influence of a controlled substance. Based on the fact that decedent could not care for his own safety or the safety of those around him, coupled with the fact that decedent was under the influence of a controlled substance while in a public place, Lassak determined that decedent was in violation of misdemeanor PC 647(f). Officer Lassak recklessly failed to recognize the potential mental health issues that decedent was suffering. Id., ¶24. At approximately 0920 hours, decedent was arrested and transported to the Torrance Police Department jail. Upon arrival to the Torrance PD, Lassak and decedent were in the jail sally port for an extended period of time until decedent was eventually escorted by Lassak and Michael Venable to the Torrance Police Department booking area, where he was booked. Id., ¶25.

Plaintiffs further allege that while undergoing the booking process, decedent was interviewed by Romero Monreal. Decedent admitted to Monreal that he had been drinking and told her delusions such that he thought people were after him and trying to kill him. This put Monreal on notice that decedent may be suffering from a mental health crisis, which required him to take steps to ensure that decedent was not a danger to himself or to others. Also during the booking process, the police officers and police service officers were informed that decedent had heart problems. Id., ¶26. They did not investigate decedent’s medical and/or mental health condition. Even though decedent was suffering from a mental health crisis, decedent was negligently and recklessly placed in a regular jail cell that was equipped with a telephone, which contained a telephone wire, where he was left unsupervised for nearly two hours. Decedent’s cell was supposed to be monitored on closed circuit camera television but defendant City personnel and staff negligently and recklessly failed to properly supervise decedent. Id., ¶27.

Plaintiffs further allege that at approximately 10:41 a.m., while in the custody of defendant City and under the care, custody, and supervision of City personnel and staff, including Police Officers Wing and Lassak and Police Service Officers Venable, Jackson, and Monreal, decedent wrapped the telephone cord around his neck and was captured on video surveillance hanging. Decedent was not discovered until 12:05 p.m. when jail personnel finally found him unresponsive. They did not check on or monitor decedent, even though they had cameras fixated on his cell. Id., ¶28.

Plaintiffs argue that the evidence sought are material to issues in this case and will provide pertinent information regarding the events that transpired on October 8, 2021, including “relevant evidence of unlawful and negligent acts and other misconduct by Custodial Officers Venable, Jackson, and Monreal” and “relevant evidence of the hiring.” Plaintiffs contend that they seek information to establish that defendant negligently failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline its police officers and custodial officers and evidence of the actions and inactions taken by the custodial officers on the date of the incident. Plaintiffs also seek records of reprimand, disciplinary actions, complaints or other documentation showing that defendant was aware that the custodial officers had previously violated City of Torrance policy and was prone to engage in negligent and reckless behavior in evaluating, classifying, monitoring, housing, and supervising inmates, such as decedent.

In opposition, defendant argues that plaintiffs have not shown good cause for the requested discovery and its materiality to the subject matter of the lawsuit. Defendant asserts that there are no allegations that the officers engaged in misconduct or lied about what occurred or used excessive force or that decedent was wrongfully arrested. Defendant argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to evidence of past complaints, which have no bearing on the lawsuit. As to the city’s administrative investigations into decedent’s death, defendant argues that plaintiffs “are attempting to have the City conduct their investigation for him” and that “only the name and contact information of complaining parties and witnesses are available to a party seeking Pitchess discovery absent a showing by that party that the names and contact information prove insufficient to allow him or her to adequately conduct their own investigation.”

The court rules as follows: The court finds that the Pitchess motion is properly brought and that plaintiffs have sufficiently complied with Evidence Code §1043 to the extent that plaintiffs have identified the custodial officers whose records are being sought and identified the documents with the required specificity.

As to categories nos. 1, 2, and 3 (investigative reports of the incident), plaintiffs have shown the materiality.

As to nos. 4, 5, and 6 (“complete personnel file” of the custodial officer), the requests are overbroad.

As to no. 7.a. (background checks), plaintiffs have shown the materiality. In the FAC, plaintiffs are alleging negligent hiring.

As to no. 7.b. (investigative reports), the category is overbroad. The request is modified to cover any investigations for failure to supervise an inmate, or failure to evaluate or investigate an inmate’s medical or mental health condition, or failure to provide medical care, or involvement with the injury or death of an inmate.

As to 7.c. (complaints), plaintiffs have not shown materiality. There are no allegations of misconduct as listed under this category.

As to 7.e. (discipline), the request is overbroad. The request is modified to cover any discipline for failure to supervise an inmate, or for failure to evaluate or investigate an inmate’s medical or mental health condition, or for failure to provide medical care, or for involvement with the injury or death of an inmate.

As to7.f. (training), plaintiffs have shown materiality. The FAC alleges that the City of Torrance was negligent in its training of the respective custodial officers.