Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV09562, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09562 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 61
GUNINDER SINGH vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
Tentative:
Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for Disclosure of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) is GRANTED. The court shall conduct an in-camera inspection to exclude irrelevant information and facts which are ‘so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit, pursuant to Evidence Code § 1045. Records disclosed or discovered in this fashion “may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” (Evid. Code § 1045, subd. (e).)
Defendant to provide notice.
Analysis:
Evid. Code section 1043, subd. (a) requires that a party seeking disclosure of police officer “personnel records” file a particular motion, a Pitchess motion. (Cf. Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) “Personnel records” are defined as “primary records specific to each peace or custodial officer's employment, including evaluations, assignments, status changes, and imposed discipline.” (Pen. Code, § 832.5, subd (d)(1).)
The Pitchess provisions “take precedence over the general discovery rules outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Davis v. City of Sacramento (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 393, 400.)
Evid. Code section 1043, subd. (b) details what a Pitchess motion shall include:
(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 which 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. [And] (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.
“A finding of ‘good cause’ under section 1043, subdivision (b) is only the first hurdle in the discovery process. Once good cause for discovery has been established, section 1045 provides that the court shall then examine the information ‘in chambers’ in conformity with section 915 (i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present), and shall exclude from disclosure several enumerated categories of information.” (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (“Santa Cruz”) (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83.) The excluded categories of information include, in criminal proceedings, “the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed pursuant to section 832.5 of the Penal Code,” and otherwise include “[f]acts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.” (Evid. Code § 1045, subd. (b).)
“Section 1043 clearly requires a showing of ‘good cause’ for discovery in two general categories: (1) the ‘materiality’ of the information or records sought to the “subject matter involved in the pending litigation,” and (2) a ‘reasonable belief’ that the governmental agency has the ‘type’ of information or records sought to be disclosed.” (Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 83.) Courts have described that as a “relatively low threshold” for discovery, but have also noted that section 1045’s protective provisions offset that low threshold. (Id. at p. 83–84.)
Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant) seeks the disclosure of the following category of peace officer personnel records:
The entire investigation file for the administrative investigation identified as #OMB-22-387 involving a complaint by employee Stacey Drake against Plaintiff [Guninder Sing] and Lieutenant Anitria Tomlin, a sworn peace officer. (Motion at p. 2.) Defendant argues that the documents are necessary because Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation rests upon the allegation that the investigation to which the requested files pertain was launched against her as a “sham” effort to retaliate against her for her complaints related to cutbacks in the fingerprint analysis department. (Motion at pp. 3–4, 6.) Defendant will thus use the records to defend the legitimacy of its investigation. (Motion at p. 6.)
Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion, but has filed a response indicating that in concurrent litigation filed by Anitria Tomlin, represented by the same counsel as Plaintiff, Defendant has obtained a similar order for the disclosure of the same documents. (Response at pp. 2–3.) However, that ruling does not obviate the necessity of the present motion, as the court in that action, as noted by Plaintiff, entered a protective order limiting use of the documents disclosed to that litigation. (Response at p. 2.)
The motion is therefore GRANTED. The court shall conduct an in-camera inspection to exclude irrelevant information and facts which are ‘so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit, pursuant to Evidence Code § 1045. Records disclosed or discovered in this fashion “may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” (Evid. Code § 1045, subd. (e).)