Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV24195, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24195    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 5, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(4) Pitchess Motions

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED.

THE COURT WILL SET A DATE AT THE HEARING FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS. 

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff Larry Waldie filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles, asserting one cause of action for whistleblower retaliation. Plaintiff served as a Lieutenant in the Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department and was the operations Lieutenant of Compton Station. Plaintiff alleges he was denied a promotion for expressing opposition to an allegedly criminal gang within LASD known as The Executioners.

ANALYSIS

“A party seeking discovery of a peace officer's personnel records must follow a two-step process.  First, the party must file a written motion describing the type of records sought, supported by ‘[a]ffidavits showing good cause for the discovery. . ., 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.’  [Cal. Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3).]  This initial burden is a ‘relatively relaxed standard [ ].’  Information is material if it ‘“will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.”’  ‘[A] declaration by counsel on information and belief is sufficient to state facts to satisfy the “materiality” component of that section.’”  (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1085–1086 [citations omitted].)

“Second, if ‘the trial court concludes the defendant has fulfilled these prerequisites and made a showing of good cause, the custodian of records should bring to court all documents “potentially relevant” to the defendant's motion. . . .  The trial court “shall examine the information in chambers” [Cal. Evid. Code § 1045(b).], “out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized [to possess the records] and such other persons [the custodian of records] is willing to have present.”. . . Subject to statutory exceptions and limitations. . . the trial court should then disclose to the defendant “such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.”’”  (Haggerty, supra at 1086.)

A. Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion for Deputy Jaime Juarez’s Personnel Records

            Plaintiff seeks the discovery and disclosure of several categories of documents, including internal investigation documents relating to Juarez’ use of force, deputy-clique involvement, and discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims made against Juarez.[1] Plaintiff also seeks records documenting any investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations.

            Plaintiff alleges that Juarez is part of a deputy gang. Plaintiff alleges Juarez attempted to coerce Plaintiff into placing other deputy gang members into certain leadership positions at the Compton Station. This is sufficient to show good cause for review of Juarez’s personnel records. In opposition, Defendant asserts that the requests are overbroad as to time. This is not grounds to deny the motion.

            Plaintiff’s motion as to Jaime Juarez is GRANTED.

B. Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion for Undersheriff Timothy Murakami’s Personnel Records

            Plaintiff seeks the discovery and disclosure of the same categories of documents as it seeks for Jaime Juarez, with the addition of documents relating to two specific internal affairs investigations.

            Plaintiff alleges that Murakami denied Plaintiff promotions and transfers after Plaintiff reported activity relating to the alleged gang. Plaintiff asserts Murakami has a history of using racial epithets and has engaged in covering up deputy misconduct. This is good cause for review of Murakami’s personnel records.

            Plaintiff’s motion as to Timothy Murakami is GRANTED.

C. Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion for Commander Michael Thatcher’s Personnel Records

            Plaintiff seeks the discovery and disclosure of the same categories of documents as it seeks for Jaime Juarez, with the addition of any “Brady List” where Thatcher’s name appears.

            Plaintiff asserts Thatcher also was responsible for denying Plaintiff a promotion and denying Plaintiff’s transfer requests. Plaintiff also asserts that the deputy gang increased arrests as the Compton Station so that Thatcher would be promoted to Commander. This is sufficient to show good cause for review.

            Plaintiff’s motion as to Michael Thatcher is GRANTED.

D. Defendant’s Pitchess Motion for Plaintiff’s Personnel Records

            Defendant moves for disclosure of Plaintiff’s personnel records and for disclosure of a specific Internal Affairs investigation file. (See Towner v. County of Ventura (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 761, 898-901 [County’s disclosure of investigator’s personnel records in writ proceeding without complying with Penal Code § 832.7 was against the law.])

Plaintiff’s personnel records are relevant to this action and the IA investigation is relevant to Defendant’s defenses. This is good cause for disclosure.

            In opposition, Plaintiff asks the Court to order disclosure of additional documents. Plaintiff cannot request Pitchess relief in an opposition to another party’s motion. If Plaintiff seeks more documents, Plaintiff may move for their disclosure.

            Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.