Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02200, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02200    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     February 21, 2024                                           TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         ZHOIE PEREZ v. OFFICER ZAMORA, OFFICER SANDOVAL, OFFICER CARRILLO, OFFICER GUTIERREZ, CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02200

MOTION TO QUASH

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant City of South Pasadena (“the City”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed December 12, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             The City moves to quash subpoenas seeking personnel records of peace officers.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Zhoie Perez’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she was harassed by South Pasadena police officers. Plaintiff filed this complaint on September 21, 2023, alleging six causes of action for (1) assault and battery, (2) negligence, (3) violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51.7, (4) violations of the Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil code section 52.1, (5) violation of the Unruh Act, Civil Code section 51, 52, and (6) false imprisonment.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The City’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena served on November 28, 2023, is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

DISCUSSION

            The City moves to quash subpoenas seeking personnel records of peace officers. The City provides that Plaintiff served subpoenas on November 28, 2023. (Valencia Decl. ¶ 2.) In the subpoena Plaintiff sought, among other things, “disciplinary records” for the individual officer defendants.

            Penal Code section 832.7, subdivision (a), provides that: “[T]he personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code.”

“Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a) reads in part: ‘In any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records ..., the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body....’ (Italics added.) The expansive language of Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a) does two things. First, it makes clear that Pitchess motions may be brought in both civil and criminal cases.” (Riverside County Sheriff’s Dept. v. Stiglitz (2014) 60 Cal.4th 624, 631.)

            Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b), provides: “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 that has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard. [¶] (2) A description of the type of records or information sought. [¶] (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 applicable statutes and case law clearly provide that the Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain the personnel records of the officers named in this present case is governed by specific procedures. However, Plaintiff has not made the applicable motion to obtain the relevant discovery. Further, the City provides that the request reports and records related to the incident have been provided to Plaintiff. (Motion at p. 6:16-17.) Plaintiff’s subpoena improperly seeks to obtain personnel records of peace officers without a Pitchess motion.

CONCLUSION

            The City’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena served on November 28, 2023, is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   February 21, 2024                                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court