Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00015013-CU-CR-CTL, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Civil Rights Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00015013-CU-CR-CTL CORTEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 02/15/2024

Plaintiff's motion for discovery of law enforcement officer personnel records is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

A. Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, which codified the California Supreme Court's decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, allow discovery of certain relevant information in peace officer personnel records on a showing of good cause. First, the party seeking disclosure must file a motion supported by declarations showing good cause for discovery and materiality to the pending case.

People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 109. Once good cause has been established, the court is required to conduct an in camera review of the records to determine what, if any, information should be disclosed to the requesting party. Id. B. Plaintiff has established good cause for an in camera review of the personnel files for Officers Chalit Caranto, Michael Johnson, Andrew Torres, and Michael Crowley regarding any investigative documents/internal affairs reports for the incidents giving rise to this specific case. See Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1089.

C. With respect to alleged prior instances of excessive force, plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that the officer defendants used excessive force while he was a pretrial detainee in the County jail. (See Lamere Decl., ¶¶ 7, 34.) He contends that past incidents of excessive force support his Bane Act claim, as they tend to show the absence of mistake or negligence. See Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 67. The court agrees. While plaintiff is not entitled to all excessive force documentation in the officers' personnel files (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220), plaintiff has established good cause for an in camera review of any complaints, grievances, reports, allegations, claims, or other statements contending that the officers used excessive force in a custodial setting.

D. The motion is otherwise denied.

'[O]nly documentation of past officer misconduct which is similar to the misconduct alleged...in the pending litigation is relevant and therefore subject to discovery.' California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1021. In this case, none of plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the officer defendants failed to intervene against another officer's use of excessive force, engaged in an act of dishonesty, failed to intervene against another officer's act of dishonesty, or violated Department policies or procedures.

Moreover, even if the requests were sufficiently tailored to plaintiff's claims, plaintiff has not explained Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3088080  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CORTEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2023-00015013-CU-CR-CTL how the records would be used to establish liability or evaluate witness credibility. See Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026 (moving party must show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial).

E. Based on the foregoing, the San Diego Sheriff's Department is directed to make available to the court all 'potentially relevant' documents described in subparts B and C. See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-29. The court will hear from the parties as to proposed dates for a further hearing regarding the in camera review. Any information disclosed following the in camera review will be subject to the parties' protective order on file (ROA 57). Evid. Code § 1045(e).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3088080  7