Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV17208, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17208    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 12, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Pitchess Motions

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S PITCHESS MOTION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT’S PITCHESS MOTION IS GRANTED.

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.

“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

Plaintiff seeks the following records:

Personnel Investigation Information of Complaints Made By LAPD Sergeant Mario Cardona Against LAPD Commander Al Neal -- Plaintiff requests any and all files and records related to any investigation conducted by the City of Los Angeles and/or the LAPD related to the unredacted personnel investigations of Al Neal regarding the incidents set forth in the following Complaints: CF No. 20-002336, CF No. 21-000124, and CF No. 24-003038. These are personnel complaints initiated by Plaintiff against Neal which form the basis of his allegations of retaliation against LAPD Commander Al Neal. Each of the requested documents include but are not limited to: investigation reports; notes taken during or after the investigation; witness statements; any and all personnel files; internal City of Los Angeles and/or LAPD files; audiorecordings, video-recordings, digital recordings, voice recordings, computer files, documents obtained during the course of the investigation, data files, videotapes, and/or documents memorializing or summarizing any and all interviews of any witnesses, employees conducted by the City of Los Angeles and/or LAPD in relation to the herein mentioned investigation.

Plaintiff alleges Neal, his former supervisor, retaliated against Plaintiff for filing personnel complaints against Neal by removing him from his previous assignment. This establishes good cause for disclosure of the requested information.

In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is not entitled to the investigator’s notes under Haggerty v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2004) 117 Cal.4th 1079. Haggerty did not hold that an investigator’s notes are never discoverable, but rather that a balancing test of relevancy versus the need for secrecy must be conducted. Here, these notes could be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims as they arise directly from the complaints at issue in the motion.

Defendant also argues that other officers’ personnel records and information regarding the ongoing complaint investigation should not be disclosed. As stated, Plaintiff has established good cause for the requested records. Any records that appear to be irrelevant or could interfere with an ongoing investigation may be excluded after in camera review. The Court will not deny the motion on these grounds.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

B. Defendant’s Pitchess Motion

Defendant seeks the audio recording of the witness interview for LAPD Officer Jonathan Chandler in the matter of CF No. 21-000124 and the audio recording of LAPD Sergeant Scott Blackman in the matter of CF No. 21-000124. Defendant asserts that disclosure is necessary to determine whether Chandler and Blackman have given conflicting testimony on factual matters relevant to this action. Plaintiff does not oppose.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.