Judge Frank M. Tavelman, Case 20STCV29802 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20STCV29802, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29802 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

TENTATIVE RULING

February 10, 2023

PITCHESS MOTION TO DISCOVER POLICE RECORDS

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 20STCV29802

MP: United States Equestrian Federation, Inc. (“US Equestrian”); Flintridge Riding Club (“Flintridge”); USA Equestrian Trust, Inc. (“USA Equestrian”) (collectively “Defendants”)

RP: Julie Boyer (Plaintiff-Boyer)

Brief Case Summary: Plaintiff-Boyer alleges that, when she was a juvenile, equestrian trainer Jimmy Williams abused while she was a member of Flintridge. As a result, Plaintiff-Boyer alleges she has suffered mentally and emotionally as a child and has continued to suffer severe emotional distress, general, special and consequential damage. Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, in the operative Complaint, alleges past, present, and future general damages and special damages.

Defendants’ Request: Plaintiff-Boyer subsequently completed her over 30-year career as a Los Angeles Police Officer, and Defendants seek confidential records from the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”).

1. Plaintiff-Boyer’s employment application to the Los Angeles Police Department.

2. 2. The Background Investigation File including but not limited to the background narrative report, Plaintiff-Boyer’s personal history statement, local law enforcement agency records check, education verification, employment history check, relative / personal references checks, neighborhood checks, medical / psychological clearances and other documentation.

3. Documents pertaining to all medical evaluations of Plaintiff-Boyer.

4. Documents pertaining to all psychological evaluations of Plaintiff-Boyer.

5. Documents evidencing the length of time Plaintiff-Boyer has worked for the Los Angeles Police Department.

6. Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s educational and employment history.

7. Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s education and training as a police officer.

8. Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s performance reviews, internal investigations, and disciplinary records.

9. All testing, promotional, transfer, and job assignment records of Plaintiff-Boyer.

10. All documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s missed time from work.

11. All documents evidencing any worker’s compensation claims made by Plaintiff-Boyer.

12. All medical records related to any worker’s compensation claims made by Plaintiff-Boyer.

13. All photographs or videotape of Plaintiff-Boyer.

14. All documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s violation of any Los Angeles Police Department protocol or procedure.

15. All documents pertaining to Plaintiff-Boyer’s retirement, including an exit interview

Plaintiff-Boyer’s Opposition: As to items 8 and 14, the Plaintiff-Boyer believes a showing has not been made and the request constitutes an “improper fishing expedition.” Plaintiff-Boyer agrees that as to items 10, 11 and 12, a sufficient showing has been made; however, the review should be limited to phycological, emotional and stress issues.

Plaintiff-Boyer’s opposition does not object to the following:

Plaintiff-Boyer does not object to disclosure of items:

1. Plaintiff-Boyer’s employment application to the Los Angeles Police Department.

2. The Background Investigation File including but not limited to the background narrative

report, Plaintiff-Boyer’s personal history statement, local law enforcement agency records check, education verification, employment history check, relative / personal references checks, neighborhood checks, medical / psychological clearances and other documentation.

3. Documents pertaining to all medical evaluations of Plaintiff-Boyer.

4. Documents pertaining to all psychological evaluations of Plaintiff-Boyer.

5. Documents evidencing the length of time Plaintiff-Boyer has worked for the LAPD.

6. Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s educational and employment history.

7. Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s education and training as a police officer.

9. All testing, promotional, transfer, and job assignment records of Plaintiff-Boyer.

13. All photographs or videotape of Plaintiff-Boyer.

15. All documents pertaining to Plaintiff-Boyer’s retirement, including an exit interview.

Remaining Items Disputed:

The parties have not reached agreement as to the following:

8. Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s performance reviews, internal investigations, and disciplinary records.

10. All documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s missed time from work.

11. All documents evidencing any worker’s compensation claims made by Plaintiff-Boyer.

12. All medical records related to any worker’s compensation claims made by Plaintiff-Boyer.

14. All documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s violation of any Los Angeles Police Department protocol or procedure.

Legal Standard:

Pitchess motion for discovery of police officer records are subject to a privilege against disclosure that is held by both the officer and the department. (Davis v. City of Sacramento (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 393, 401.) A Pitchess motion provides a discovery procedure by which plaintiffs may compel the discovery of information contained in a police officer's confidential personnel files if the plaintiff can make "general allegations which establish some cause for discovery" thereof. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 536-37.) As to civil proceedings, this procedure has been codified in evidence code sections 1043 and 1046 (see also Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal app 4^th 1079, 1085 statutory scheme for obtaining confidential police personnel records applies to civil and criminal cases]).

A Pitchess motion shall identify the proceeding in which the discovery is being sought, identify the party seeking discovery, identify the individual whose personnel records are being sought, and identify the governmental agency said to have custody and control of those records. (Evid. Code, § 1043 (b)(1).) The motion must describe the type of records or information sought. (Id. at § 1043 (b)(2).) Further, the movant must submit a declaration showing good cause for the discovery of such records, setting forth both the records' materiality to the subject matter of the pending litigation and the declarant's reasonable belief that the identified government agency has the type of records which are being pursued. (Id. at § 1043(b)(3).)

The statutory good faith requirement is thus a two-pronged inquiry: (1) is the information being sought material to the proceeding; and (2) does the declarant state a reasonable belief that the agency has the type of information being sought. (Evid. Code, § 1043 (b)(3).) As to materiality, this prong is satisfied upon a showing that "the evidence sought is admissible or may lead to discovery of admissible evidence." (Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 658.)

"This initial burden is a 'relatively relaxed standard.'" (Id. at 1086 (quoting City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84).) "Information is material if it 'will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.'" (Ibid.) "A declaration by counsel on information and belief is sufficient to state facts to satisfy the 'materiality' component of that section," (id. (quoting Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, 51)), "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 (citing City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 84).)

As to whether a declarant states a reasonable belief that the government agency has possession of the type of records being sought, it is enough that his or her belief be "premised upon a rational inference from known or reasonably assumed facts." (Evid. Code, § 1043(b)(3); City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 90, quoting Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) at p. 1138.) The statute does not require the declarant to identify the particular records being sought, as it is enough that the declarant describes them by type. (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 90-91.) Nor does the statute require the declarant's personal knowledge. It is permissible that a movant submits a declaration based on information and belief. (Id. at p. 86.)

Upon the court's determination that a movant has presented good cause for his Pitchess motion, the Court shall conduct an in-camera review of the evidence pursued by said motion, accompanied only by the person authorized to claim privilege on behalf of the government. (Evid. Code, §§ 1045, 915(b).) Specifically, once good cause is established, Evidence Code § 1045 provides that the Court must then examine the information in chambers in conformity with Evidence Code § 915 and shall exclude from disclosure information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation. (Evid. Code, § 1045.) The two-pronged good cause inquiry acts as a "relatively relaxed" and "relatively low threshold serving to ensure that the government produces "all potentially relevant documents" for review by the trial court. (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016, quoting City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 84.)

Once documents are produced in chambers, the Court will exclude information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation, pursuant to Evidence Code § 1045(b)(1).

In determining relevance, the Court shall examine the information in chambers in conformity with Section 915, and pursuant to Evidence Code §1045(b), the Court shall exclude from disclosure:

1. Information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation in aid of which discovery or disclosure is sought.

2. In any criminal proceeding the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

3. Acts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.

Analysis:

Plaintiff alleges injuries from the events and damages related to the following:

She claims that her injuries, as follows, have been persistent and worsening since 1977:

• Great pain of mind and body

• Emotional distress

• Trust issues

• Feelings of self-blame

• Estrangement from family and friends

• Sadness

• Shame

• Embarrassment

• Relationship and intimacy issues

• Self-esteem issues

• Self-worth issues relating to

• Issues with authority

• Loss of innocence

• Bulimia

• Feeling forced to re-live trauma through daily triggers

• Not being able to assert physical boundaries with others

• Being prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life

Defendants have made an initial showing of both materiality and that the LAPD are in possession of these documents. (Declaration of William Johnson ¶¶13, 14). As to item 8 (Documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s performance reviews, internal investigations, and disciplinary records), the Court believes the Defendants have made a sufficient showing for an in camera review, but limited to those portions of the performance review, internal investigations, and disciplinary records that fall under Evidence Code §915 and the injuries alleged by Plaintiff-Boyer.

As to Item 14 (All documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s violation of any Los Angeles Police Department protocol or procedure), the Defendants have made a sufficient showing; however, Plaintiff-Boyer’s argument that the initial request is overbroad. The showing has been made as to “Issues with authority” and insubordination.

As to Items 10, 11 and 12 ((10) All documents evidencing Plaintiff-Boyer’s missed time from work; (11) All documents evidencing any worker’s compensation claims made by Plaintiff-Boyer; (12) All medical records related to any worker’s compensation claims made by Plaintiff-Boyer. The Court agrees with Plaintiff-Boyer’s objections that the initial request is overbroad. The in camera review based upon the Defendants showing shall be limited to psychological, emotional and stress related issues. The Court understands that in some instances those conditions may be an underling cause of the missed time or worker’s compensation claim, and will view the file accordingly.

Conclusion

Defendants have met their burden for disclosure, as to the following disputed items, the Court orders an in camera review of the uncontested items: