Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20STCV29802, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29802    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS

ALLEGATIONS/HISTORY: 

Julie Boyer (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, when she was a juvenile, equestrian trainer Jimmy Williams abused her while she was a member of Flintridge Riding Club. As a result, Plaintiff 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.

In discovery the United States Equestrian Federation, Inc., USA Equestrian Trust, Inc., and Flintridge Riding Club (“Defendants”) seek confidential records from the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) in reference to Plaintiff’s over 30-year career as an LAPD Officer.

On February 10, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (“Pitchess Motion”). The Court ordered an in-camera review of several uncontested discovery items, as well as several contested items subject to limitation (“the Order”).

The following uncontested matters were ordered for in-camera review:

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.

The following contested matters were also ordered for in-camera review:

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.

The Order reflected that matters 8, 10, and 12 would be subject to in-camera review, but limited to review for psychological, emotional, and stress issues. The Order reflected these matters would be limited to the extent they fall under Evidence Code § 915. The Order also stated any disclosure would be subject to a protective order under Evidence Code § 1045(e).

Defendant now refiles its Pitchess Motion to properly serve the LAPD. Defendant’s previous Pitchess Motion was only served on the City of Los Angeles, however some of the documentation sought was in custody of the LAPD. As such, the LAPD declined to waive service when presented with the Court’s order. Defendant’s motion is being refiled solely with respect to the limited category of personal records which are maintained by the LAPD.

Plaintiff and the LAPD have both filed oppositions to this motion. Plaintiff does not oppose the ordering of an in-camera review but asks the Court to issue an order which still reflects the limitations previously imposed. (Plaintiff Oppo. pgs. 2-3.) The LAPD does not object to the production of documents so long as the Court finds good cause for the motion. (LPAD Oppo. pg. 2.) The LAPD anticipates it will have Plaintiff’s personnel file prepared for in-camera review on April 13, 2023 and requests Defendant order a court reporter for the review.

Given there is no substantive change between the first and second Pitchess Motions, the Court maintains Defendant has shown good cause with respect to the items in possession of the LAPD. The Court also maintains the limitations previously applied to in-camera review of those documents should remain. Any disclosure will be subject to a protective order under Evidence Code § 1045(e).

The earliest availability the Court has for an in-camera review is April 28, 2023.  Defendant is ordered to provide a court reporter for the in-camera review.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

United States Equestrian Federation, Inc., USA Equestrian Trust, Inc., and Flintridge Riding Club’s Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records came on regularly for hearing on April 14, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS IS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS NOTED IN THE COURT’S WRITTEN RULING.

AN IN-CAMERA REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE HELD AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE PARTIES AND THE LAPD. DEFENDANT SHALL PROVIDE A COURT REPORTER FOR THE IN-CAMERA REVIEW.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN BY DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION, INC.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  APRIL 14, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles