Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV39087, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV39087 Hearing Date: October 17, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 17, 2022
21STCV39087
Pitchess Motion
DECISION
Good cause having been found, the next step is the in camera review with the document custodian, attorney for the agency and the court reporter.
The parties are ordered to appear on the date of the hearing to set a date for the in camera review.
The Court is granting the proposed protective order.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is a subrogation action for motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision involving Plaintiff’s insured employee which took place in March 2020. Plaintiff the County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed its Complaint against Defendants Martin Luther King, Jr. – Los Angeles (“MLK-LA”) Healthcare Corporation and Amandalynn Milargo Peralta on October 22, 2021.
Defendants MLK-LA filed the instant motion for order to produce documents for inspection and copying on September 8, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
MLK-LA seeks orders compelling the LA Sheriff’s Department (LASD) to produce for inspection and copying the personnel records of the Claimant Patrick Jordan, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy. Specifically, MLK-LA requests Claimant’s worker’s compensation records, personnel records, payroll records, and fringe benefit records.
Opposing Arguments
The LASD argues that MLK-LA’s declaration and motion do not set forth good cause for the release of personnel records. Plaintiff’s opposition mainly requests that MLK-LA comply with all the requirements set forth in Evidence Code sections 1043-1046. In the event that the Court determines MLK-LA has shown good cause, Plaintiff requests an in-camera review of the documents and a protective order limiting the use and dissemination of the information to this case.
Reply Arguments
MLK-LA reiterates arguments from its motion and requests orders compelling LASD to produce the requested information and, after an in-camera inspection by the Court, make all relevant records available to MLK-LA for inspection and copying.
Legal Standard
Personnel records of a peace officer can be obtained through a noticed motion supported by good cause. Evid. Code, §1043. “Good cause” requires a showing supported by affidavits that meet two elements: that the discovery is material and “by stating upon reasonable belief” that the agency has the records or information. This is a “relatively low threshold.” (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1011, 1019.)
The information is “material” if it “will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.” Moreover, a declaration by 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.4th 1079, 1086.)
The declaration in support of the motion “must articulate how the discovery sought may lead to relevant evidence or may itself be admissible direct or impeachment evidence [citations omitted] that would support those proposed defenses. These requirements ensure that only information ‘potentially relevant’ to the defense need be brought by the custodian of the officer's records to the court for its examination in chambers.” (Warrick supra at 1024.)
“If the trial court concludes [a party] has fulfilled these prerequisites and made a showing of good cause, the custodian of records should bring to court all documents ‘potentially relevant’ to the [requesting party’s] motion…. The trial court ‘shall examine the information in chambers, out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized to possess the records and such other persons the custodian of records is willing to have present…. Subject to statutory exceptions and limitations ... the trial court should then disclose to the defendant such information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.” (Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 1086.)
Discussion
MLK-LA seeks orders compelling the production for inspection and copying documents pertaining to Claimant’s worker’s compensation benefits, payroll records, and fringe benefits records.
MLK-LA served Plaintiff through its attorney of record with notice of this motion. However, Evidence Code section 1043, subd. (a) requires that the party seeking discovery of the personnel records provide written notice to the governmental agency that has custody or control of the records. Here, MLK-LA’s proof of service on this motion only includes the name of Plaintiff’s counsel. However, given that the LASD has opposed this motion, it appears the appropriate agency received notice of the motion.
The parties do not dispute whether LASD possesses the documents at issue. Thus, the relevant issue is whether MLK-LA’s declaration and motion have sufficiently shown good cause for production of these records.
MLK-LA seeks orders compelling LASD to produce the following documents for inspection and copying:
1. Any and all DOCUMENTS submitted to Plaintiff by CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
2. Any and all DOCUMENTS submitted to Plaintiff by any PERSON other that CLAIMANT ad part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
3. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts regarding any monetary payments made by YOU directly to CLAIMANT as part of the underlying claim.
4. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts regarding any monetary payments made by YOU to any PERSON other than CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
5. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts regarding any benefits other than monetary payment provided by YOU to CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
6. Any and all medical records regarding medical treatment, examination, and/or consultation for any and all injuries CLAIMANT allegedly suffered as a result of the INCIDENT.
7. Any and all bills and invoices regarding any medical treatment, examination, and/or consultation for any and all injuries CLAIMANT allegedly suffered as a result of the INCIDENT.
8. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts on which YOU based YOUR decision to make any monetary payments directly to CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
9. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts on which YOU based YOUR decision to make any monetary payments to any PERSON other than CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
10. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts on which YOU base YOUR decision to provide any non-monetary benefits to CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
11. Any and all x-ray films, CAT scans, MRI films, and any other visual evidence of medical tests and scans that depict any injuries allegedly sustained by CLAIMANT as a result of the INCIDENT.
12. Any and all DOCUMENTS that contain facts regarding any proposed future or additional medical treatment of the CLAIMANT for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the INCIDENT.
13. Any and all DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount of YOUR lien to date for monetary benefits YOU have paid directly to CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
14. Any and all DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount of YOUR lien to date for monetary benefits YOU have paid to any PERSON other than CLAIMANT as part of the UNDERLYING CLAIM.
15. If the UNDERLYING CLAIM has been resolved, any and all DOCUMENTS that memorialize that resolution.
MLK-LA submits a declaration from counsel in support of its motion. This is a subrogation action and the documents requested pertain to Claimant’s claim for worker’s compensation are necessary to determining why MLK-LA should consider reimbursing Plaintiff. (Sawyer Decl., ¶5.) MLK-LA reasonably believes Plaintiff possesses the documents sought because Plaintiff is self-insured for worker’s compensation benefits. (Id., ¶10.) MLK-LA previously requested the documents as part of their request for production. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiff’s Counsel objected to the requests and instructed MLK-LA to file the instant motion to access the personnel records requested. (Id., ¶7.) The personnel records, including worker’s compensation benefits, payroll records, and fringe benefits records are material because Plaintiff seeks to recover worker’s compensation benefits and other damages paid to Claimant in this action. (Id., ¶10.)
MLK-LA satisfies the requirement of a showing of good cause. The personnel documents pertaining to Claimant’s worker’s compensation benefits, payroll records, and fringe benefits records are relevant because this is a subrogation action. Plaintiff has placed Claimant’s worker’s compensation benefits, payroll records, and other benefits at issue because Plaintiff’s Complaint states it seeks damages for worker’s compensation benefits, lost wages, and other damages according to proof. (Compl., p.3.) The parties do not dispute that LASD is in possession of the personnel records.
LASD does not dispute the substance of MLK-LA’s motion. Although it argues that MLK-LA has not shown good cause for production of the personnel records, it does not articulate any reason why MLK-LA fails to show good cause. Rather, LASD requests that the records be subject to in-camera review by the Court and a protective order limiting the use of these records to this action. MLK-LA does not contest these demands.
MLK-LA’s motion is granted. The court will schedule a hearing for the in-camera examination of the specifically identified records.
