Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 21SMCV01943, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01943    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:  Sanchez v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

SUBJECT:                PITCHESS MOTION  

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Alexandra Sanchez

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant City of Santa Monica

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Evidence Code §1043 and 1045 is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause under Evidence Code §1043 as to each of the twelve categories of documents identified in the Notice of Motion. 

ANALYSIS

A peace officer’s personnel file is only discoverable pursuant to Evidence Code §§1043 and 1045.  Evidence Code §1043 “requires the party seeking the discovery of peace or custodial officer personnel records or information from those records to file a motion with the court and give notice of the motion to the government agency that has custody or control of the records. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a).) The discovery motion must include, among other things, a description of the type of records or information sought and affidavits showing good cause for their discovery or disclosure. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(2)-(3).)”  Riske v. Supr. Ct. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5^th 647, 654-655 (describing “Pitchess” motion procedure in context of civil action by officer suing government agency for employment discrimination and retaliation). 

“Good cause for discovery of peace officer personnel records under the statutory scheme exists when the party seeking the discovery shows the ‘materiality’ of the information to the subject matter of the pending litigation and states upon ‘reasonable belief’ that the agency has the type of information sought.  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.  The affiant's credibility is not at issue; the trial court determines whether a plausible factual foundation has been established; it does not determine whether the moving party's version of events is credible or persuasive.”  Id. at 655.

            The good cause requirement applied to Pitchess motions is a “relatively low threshold for discovery” and a “relatively relaxed standard” intended to “insure the production for trial court review of all potentially relevant documents.”  Id. at 655 (quoting Warrick v. Supr. Ct. (2005) 35 Cal.4^th 1011, 1019 and People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4^th 172, 179).  Once this low threshold is met, the trial court then reviews the “pertinent documents in chambers in conformity with Evidence Code section 915 and disclose[s] only that information falling within statutorily defined standards of relevance.”  Id. at 656. 

            Ordinarily, a Pitchess motion is brought by a defendant in a criminal case as part of the defendant’s defense.  Id. at 654.  However, Evidence Code §1043 applies to both criminal and civil actions.  Evid. C. §1043(a)(1)(describing notice procedure for discovery of peace officer’s personnel records in a civil action).  A civil plaintiff seeking officer personnel records to affirmatively establish an element of the plaintiff’s claims must bring a Pitchess motion to obtain those records.  Id. at 652-653. 

Moreover, while criminal cases often involve accusations of officer misconduct, officer misconduct is not required to establish good cause on a Pitchess motion.  See Riske, supra, 6 Cal.App.5^th at 663, fn 6 (trial court erroneously denied Pitchess motion on grounds that plaintiff’s complaint did not allege officer misconduct).  So long as a peace officer’s personnel records are sought, a Pitchess motion must be brought and the good cause requirement is satisfied by presenting “plausible factual scenario for how the records are material to the subject matter of the pending litigation.”  Id. at 662 (trial court erred in denying Pitches motion on grounds that Pitchess procedure did not apply to discover officer personnel records of officers who had not committed or witnessed any misconduct). 

In Riske, the plaintiff sued his former employer for retaliation, claiming he was denied promotion because he was a whistleblower and alleging that less qualified candidates were promoted instead of him.  Id. at 652.  Plaintiff sought the Training and Evaluation and Manage System (“TEAMS”) reports and performance evaluations of those officers who were promoted over him.  Plaintiff argued these personnel records were relevant to establishing that the City’s stated reason for refusing to promote him—better qualified candidates—was pretextual.  Id. at 653. 

In satisfaction of the good cause affidavit requirement, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a retired captain of the police force who participated in the selection process during the relevant period.  Id.  The retired captain testified that the TEAMS reports of each applicant played a “crucial role” in the selection process.  Id.  He also testified that the performance evaluations of the candidates were also considered in the selection process and those evaluations provided information unavailable in the TEAMS report.  Id. 

The Court of Appeals found that Riske demonstrated good cause based on a plausible factual showing of materiality based on Riske’s allegations in the complaint.  “Riske made that showing by articulating his whistleblower activity, a history of being maligned by other officers for that activity and his substantial qualifications for each of the 14 positions for which he applied. He also alleged he was more qualified than each of the candidates selected. Further particularity is not required.”  Riske, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at 663. 

Plaintiff fails to submit an affidavit demonstrating good cause as to each of the 12 categories of documents sought.  Plaintiff’s attorney affidavit fails to address how each category identified in the Pitchess motion is material to the Plaintiff’s complaint allegations.  See Motion, Dec. of K. Grau, ¶¶12-15. 

Plaintiff must submit an affidavit establishing a plausible factual scenario that would make each category of requested documents material to Plaintiff’s complaint allegations or Defendant’s defenses. Certainly, Plaintiff’s showing does not rise to that of the plaintiff in Riske, who only sought two specific types of personnel records and submitted an affidavit establishing the materiality of those two specific types of personnel records plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and pretext. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Evidence Code §1043 and 1045 is DENIED.  Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause under Evidence Code §1043 as to each of the twelve categories of documents identified in the Notice of Motion.