Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV13267, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13267    Hearing Date: February 5, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CONFIDENTIALITY MOTION

Pursuant to the parties' meet and confer, the sole issue to be decided by the Court with respect to the City's Motion to Designate Records Confidential and Motions to Seal is whether the Internal Affairs investigation report and findings relating to the March 4, 2021 incident (CITY-02372-2374, CITY-02505-2696) should be designated as confidential.

In both motions, Defendant cites to Roman Catholic Archbishop in Portland (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 417, 424, a federal bankruptcy case out of Oregon that lists seven factors to consider to designate records as confidential: (1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate or improper purpose; (3) whether disclosure will cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; (5) whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency; (6) whether a party benefiting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (7) whether the case involves issues important to the public.  However, Roman Catholic Archbishop in Portland is not binding on this Court.

In California, it appears that the equivalent to a motion to keep confidential is a motion to seal under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, which permits the Court to seal a record only if it expressly finds: (1) an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

Plaintiff asks the Court to evaluate Defendant’s application under this framework. However, Rule 2.550(a)(2) explicitly states that Rules 2.550-2.551 do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential by law. Thus, when a document is to be deemed confidential by law, the Court is not required to make the five express findings under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) to seal the record.

Penal Code § 832.7(a) establishes that peace officer personnel records are confidential and cannot be disclosed except through Evidence Code §§ 1043 and 1046. However, subdivision (b) of Penal Code 832.7 provides exceptions for specific categories of records that must be disclosed, as follows:

·        Use of Force and Firearms – Incidents where an officer discharged a firearm at a person or used force causing death or great bodily injury, as well as sustained findings of excessive force or failure to intervene.

·        Sexual Assault – Sustained findings that an officer engaged in sexual assault against a member of the public, including acts involving force, coercion, or abuse of authority.

·        Dishonesty – Sustained findings that an officer engaged in dishonesty related to crime reporting, investigations, or misconduct inquiries, including false statements, falsified reports, destruction of evidence, or perjury.

·        Discrimination – Sustained findings that an officer engaged in prejudice or discrimination based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or other protected categories.

·        Unlawful Arrest/Search – Sustained findings that an officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated how any of these exceptions apply in the present case. Plaintiff relies on the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421) to argue for disclosure. However, SB 1421 does not allow for the blanket disclosure of peace officer personnel records. Instead, as codified in Penal Code § 832.7(b), it limits disclosure to records involving the specific exceptions enumerated in the statute. There is no provision under SB 1421 that permits wholesale disclosure of investigative files, regardless of the allegations against the officers.

The closest potential exception is related to dishonesty; however, the findings from the police internal investigation here do not support that exception.   [INFORMATION RE IA REPORT REDACTED HERE].

The Court finds that the Internal Affairs investigation report and findings are contained within the officers’ personnel files and are confidential under Penal Code § 832.7(a). As a result, Defendant is not required to satisfy the five-factor test under Rule 2.550(d) for sealing, as the records are already presumed confidential by law.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal or designate the records as confidential is granted.

January 23, 2025 Status Conference Transcript

Regarding the January 23, 2025 status conference, Plaintiff reiterates the same arguments and has not overcome the confidentiality of the investigative records. Accordingly, the Court orders those portions of the January 23, 2025 transcript containing statements describing or summarizing information from the Internal Affairs investigation records at issue to be sealed.  Defendant Los Angeles City is to lodge a proposed order consistent with this ruling within 7 days.

CONFIDENTIAL HEARING

Because the Court finds that the investigative records are confidential and should be sealed, the argument related to that decision will involve specific references to those records, attempting to parse that argument from other argument within the hearing would be unwieldy and the overall hearing will likely be inextricably intertwined with the substance of the IA Report, the City’s request to close the entire hearing is warranted and granted.

PITCHESS MOTION

 Background

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Erik Denton, individually and as the Successor-in-Interest to Joanna Denton Carrillo, Terry Denton Carrillo, and Sierra Denton Carrillo, filed this wrongful death and survivorship action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles (“City”) and County of Los Angeles, arising from the death of Plaintiff’s three children, Joanna, Terry, and Sierra, at the hands of their mother, Liliana Carrillo. Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2021, Officers Morales, Pinto, and Sergeant Thornton failed to adequately respond to Plaintiff and Dr. Miller’s phone call and in-person meeting. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the officers failed to report the issue to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

On December 5, 2023, the Court heard Plaintiff’s initial Pitchess motion and took the matter under submission. On January 22, 2024, the Court issued an order denying the motion without prejudice, stating:

“While Plaintiff is not required to prove his case to obtain law enforcement personnel records, and the Court is not to assess the personnel records request on the merits of the case, it still appears to the Court that it has to at least consider the requirements of Plaintiff’s claim. In this regard, LAPD’s reporting requirement under Penal Code 11166 arises upon a “reasonable suspicion” of abuse. Plaintiff fails to inform the Court what should have given the LAPD that ‘reasonable suspicion’”.

Plaintiff has now renewed the motion and moves the Court for an order permitting discovery of police files and records related to the following Los Angeles Police Department officers:

(a) Officer Morales, Badge No. 43735;
(b) Officer Adan Ruelas-Pinto, Badge No. 43739; and
(c) Sergeant Alfred Thornton, Badge No. 38714.

Plaintiff seeks discovery of the following categories of documents from the personnel files of each officer:

1.  LAPD file and division file, including Internal Affairs investigations;

2.  Job applications;

3.  References;

4.  Hiring materials;

5.  Onboarding records;

6.  Training documents, including written tests, retraining, training on new policies, and log of completed training;

7.  Signed acknowledgments of City policies and procedures;

8.  Employment history of different positions;

9.  Performance reviews, including supervisor reviews;

10.       Disciplinary records, including reprimands, investigations, and outcomes;

11.       Track record and/or logs of reporting and cross-reporting;

12.       Special training involving child abuse and neglect;

13.       Special training for responding to calls involving persons suffering from mental health issues;

14.       Record of any and all Internal Affairs investigations, including witness statements and body camera footage;

15.       Work schedule and records of time worked, including, without limitation, time worked in the months leading up to April 10, 2021, when the children were killed; and

16.       Continuing education materials.

Legal Standard

There is a special two-step procedure for securing disclosure of peace officer personnel records. (Warrick v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles Police Dept.) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.) First, the party seeking disclosure must file a motion that identifies the peace officer, the agency in possession of the records, a description of the records, who is seeking the records, as well as time and place of the hearing. (Evid. Code, §1043(b)(1).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration: showing “good cause” for disclosure of the records, setting forth the materiality of the records, and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the requested documents. (Evid. Code, §1043(b)(3).)

The Evidence Code §1043(b) “good cause” declaration must be sufficiently specific “to preclude the possibility of [the movant] simply casting about for any helpful information.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.) However, an attorney declaration based upon information and belief and containing hearsay may be used to evidence good cause in support of a Pitchess motion. (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1086.) The moving party need show only a “plausible factual foundation” for discovery—i.e., a scenario of officer misconduct that might occur or could have occurred. (Warrick, 35 Cal.4th at 1026.) All that is required is the presentation of a scenario that might have or could have occurred, i.e., a “relatively low threshold.” (Uybungco v. Superior Court (San Diego Police Dept.) (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 1043, 1048; see also Blumberg v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1245, 1248 (the good cause requirement of section 1043(b) “embodies a ‘relatively low threshold' for discovery’ [citation], under which a defendant need demonstrate only ‘a logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge’ and describe with some specificity ‘how the discovery being sought would support such a defense’”).)

The California Supreme Court articulated four factors by which a party can demonstrate materiality: (1) a logical connection between the information requested and the party’s claims at issue; (2) the information requested is tailored to support the party’s claim; (3) the requested discovery will support or is likely to lead to information that would support the claims; and (4) the theory under which the information might be admissible at trial. Warrick, 35 Cal.4th at 1027. Obtaining information to impeach an officer’s credibility is permitted. Garden Grove Police Dep’t v. Sup. Ct. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 430, 433.

Second, if the court finds good cause, then an in camera review of the records must be held. (Slayton v. Sup.Ct. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 61.) After personally examining the records in camera, the trial court shall order disclosure of peace officer personnel records that are “relevant to the matter involved in the pending litigation.” (Evid. Code §1045(a); People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th at 1226.) If disclosure is ordered, the court must also order that the disclosed information may not be used “for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1045(e); see Alford v. Sup.Ct. (People) (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1039–1040.)

Discussion

In the renewed motion, Plaintiff provides overwhelming evidence establishing that officers should have had a reasonable suspicion of abuse.  In other words, Plaintiff resoundingly addressed the concern the Court articulated at the last Pitchess motion.  The Court does not set forth the evidence submitted here due to confidentiality concerns.  It will, if necessary, discuss those at the closed hearing.

Defendant argues that LAPD Internal Affairs investigations contain internal adjudications regarding whether officers violated LAPD policies, which are not equivalent to the legal standards required to establish a violation of law or liability in a negligence action. (Lee Decl. at ¶ 2.) Administrative standards vary across law enforcement agencies, and LAPD policies are often more stringent than those set by POST, the California Commission for Peace Officer Standards and Training.

However, for a Pitchess motion, the threshold is relatively low. Plaintiff is not required to conclusively prove negligence but must provide some evidence supporting the underlying claim rather than relying on speculation. The Court, in ruling on the original motion, acknowledged this standard and only required Plaintiff to present some factual support. In the present motion, Plaintiff has met this burden by providing sufficient evidence not only of the conclusions of internal adjudications but also of the policies considered in making those determinations and the alternative actions the officers should or could have taken. Together, these elements form a basis for Plaintiff’s negligence claims.

At the same time, Plaintiff focused much of the argument on addressing the Court’s concerns regarding the viability of the underlying claim, and the first Warwick factor (a logical connection between the information requested and the party’s claims at issue). The moving papers do not adequately explain how each category of documents satisfies the remaining Warwick factors, including: (2) whether the information requested is tailored to support the party’s claim; (3) whether the requested discovery will support or is likely to lead to information that would support the claims; and (4) the theory under which the information might be admissible at trial.

Rather than analyzing each of these factors in detail, Plaintiff generally asserts that many documents appear to have been withheld. Plaintiff contends that relevant documents include whether the officers received training on department policies identified by Internal Affairs investigators, work history analysis, and prior disciplinary records.

The Court agrees in part with Defendant that the requested categories of documents are overly broad and not sufficiently tailored in scope. However, Defendant’s objections concern the breadth of the request, an issue that can be addressed through proper limitations rather than outright denial. In assessing the Pitchess motion and the circumstances as a whole, the Court finds evidence of possible police misconduct to which the majority of requested documents are responsive. To ensure the request remains within the confines of Warrick, the Court will impose the following limitations:

·        The temporal scope of all documents is limited to five years prior to the incident through the present.

·        (1) LAPD and Division Files, Including Internal Affairs Investigations – Limited to Internal Affairs investigations regarding the officer’s previous alleged failure to report to DCFS or mishandling of protocol or procedure related to minors and individuals with mental health concerns.

·        (2) Job Application, (3) References, (4) Hiring Materials, (8) Employment History, (15) Work Schedule and Time Records – The Court does not find a plausible factual scenario suggesting police misconduct from these documents and thus denies the request to review these categories of documents.

(5) Onboarding, (6) Training Documents, (7) Signed Acknowledgment of City Policies and Procedures, (16) Continuing Education, (9) Performance Reviews, (10) Discipline Records, (14) Internal Investigation Records – Limited to city policies, procedures, and protocols, as well as Defendant’s performance or disciplinary history related to handling cases involving minors or individuals with potential mental health issues, including but not limited to reports involving children and individuals with mental health concerns.

(11) Track Record and Logs of Reporting and Cross-Reporting – Limited to reports involving children and individuals with mental health concerns.

With the exception of the time limitation, categories (12) Special Training Related to Child Abuse and Neglect and (13) Special Training for Responding to Calls Involving Persons Suffering from Mental Health Issues are not limited.

The in camera document review shall take place on _______, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. (The parties are encouraged to stipulate to allow: (1) the Custodian of Records to deliver the records to the Court at any time prior to that date and time, with a declaration indicating that the Custodian conducted a diligent and thorough search responsive to the Court’s order and that the produced records are all the records responsive to that search; and (2) the Court to examine the documents within a reasonable time after delivery and make an order based on its review, including an order related to any claimed privilege.)

The only individuals to be present at the in camera review to the extent the parties do not stipulate as noted above, are a court reporter, a custodian of records and the attorney for the City of Los Angeles (the party who holds the privilege as to the documents being produced), as well as any other person as the attorney for the City authorizes to be present.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar. 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court