Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV00561, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV00561, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00561 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: 61

PORSCHE HEISSER vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Tentative

Plaintiff Porsche Heisser’s Motion to Discover Police Officer Personnel Records 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).)

Judicial Assistant to calendar the in-camera review.

Moving party to provide notice.

Analysis:

I. PITCHESS MOTION

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.)

Plaintiff Porsche Heisser (Plaintiff) brings the present Pitchess motion seeking the following documents from Defendant County of Los Angeles and her employer the Sheriff’s Department:

1. Documents related to the investigation of Plaintiff’s discrimination complaint;

2. Correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant related to Plaintiff’s discrimination allegations;

3. Emails from Sergeant Hector Castellanos related to Plaintiff;

4. Complaints by other employees against Sergeant Castellanos;

5. Transfer lists for the Inglewood Levy Crew from 2020 to the present;

6. Plaintiff’s Policy of Equity Complaint and Defendant’s response;

(Motion at pp. 2–4.)

Plaintiff argues that good cause supports the above categories of documents because they relate facially to her complaint of discrimination for Sergeant Castellanos’ decision to deny Plaintiff’s transfer application for the levy crew position. (Motion at pp. 8–9.) The motion is supported by the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, who testifies to the relevance of the documents. (Seemen Decl. ¶¶ 1–6.) Plaintiff has shown good cause for the motion sought.

Defendant in opposition offers no objection to the discovery sought except to note that Plaintiff’s categories seek “any” and “all” documents that fit each category’s description, and that Plaintiff presumably possesses her own correspondence. (Opposition at p. 4.) These objections do not vitiate the good cause for the requests shown by Plaintiff, as the “any” and “all” language is commonly used in discovery, and Plaintiff may seek correspondence in the possession of others to corroborate that in her own possession.

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).)