Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 22STCV22099, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael Small, Case: 22STCV22099, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 22STCV22099 Hearing Date: June 5, 2024 Dept: 57

PITCHESS MOTION

Plaintiff Medasia Matthews (“Plaintiff”) sued defendant City of Los Angeles (“the City”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; and (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA. As relevant here, Plaintiff alleges she has been a sworn police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD” or “the Department”) since December 2020. (FAC ¶1.) She currently holds the position of Police Officer I and is an African American/Black female. (Id., ¶17.) On or about January 31, 2022, Plaintiff was assigned to work with Police Officer III Swan (“Swan”), who is Caucasian/White. (Id., ¶18.) Plaintiff alleges Swan made racial comments about Jim Crow laws being good. (Id.) On or about February 1, 2022, Swan made comments about the black church and white church, and black people using EBT. (Id., ¶19.) On or about February 2, 2022, Swan made comments about black women producing chocolate milk. (Id., ¶20.) Plaintiff further alleges on or about February 3, 2022, she reported Swan’s comments to Lieutenant Busiere (“Lt. Busiere”) and asked not to be partnered with Swan. (Id., ¶22.) Plaintiff also alleges Lt. Busiere filed a personnel complaint regarding Swan’s harassment of Plaintiff. (Id.) Between March 2022 and May 2022, Plaintiff began to experience retaliatory conduct. (Id., ¶¶23-27.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring the City to disclose for in camera review by the Court certain peace officer personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [“Pitchess”]. The Court is granting the motion.

Under Pitchess, “a criminal defendant, upon a showing of good cause, [can] compel discovery of information in a police officer’s personnel file that [is] relevant to the defendant’s ability to defend against a criminal charge.” (Riske v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 654.) The principles and standards of Pitchess have been codified in statutes applicable in both criminal and civil cases. (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59, 68.) Among the types of civil cases in which Pitchess and the statutes codifying it have been applied and enforced are cases alleging discrimination and retaliation in employment. Riske, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 652, 658.)

A motion under Pitchess must describe the type of records or information sought and include an affidavit showing good cause for the discovery, which explains the materiality of the information to the subject of the pending litigation and states on reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the records or information. (People v. Superior Court) (Johnson) (2016) 61 Cal. App.4th 696, 710.) The required “good cause” showing reflects a “relatively low threshold for discovery.” (Garcia v. Superior Court (City of Santa Ana) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 63, 71.) Specifically, the affidavit need only present ‘a plausible factual foundation” for the asserted materiality of the records sought to the subject matter of the litigation. (Warrick v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles Police Department) (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1011, 1025.) In deciding whether the moving party has shown good cause for the disclosure of the records sought based on a plausible factual scenario, the trial court does not assess credibility of either the affiant or the version of the events set forth in the affidavit. (Id. at p. 1026.) “When a trial court concludes [that the] Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery a law enforcement officer's personnel files, the custodian of the records of the agency is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228–1229.) That review is conducted in camera. (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (Kennedy) (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83.)

Here, the peace officer personnel records that Plaintiff seeks in her Pitchess motion fall in the following categories:

1. All materials related to the LAPD Internal Affairs Investigation identified as CF No. 22-001145, including:

a. The Complaint Form (Form No. 1.28), Complaint Adjudication Form, Complaint Review Report, the Letter of Transmittal, and the Complaint Investigation;

b. Investigation addenda and exhibits, witness interviews and/or statements, photos, correspondence, witness lists, rough notes, the investigator’s log, materials related to the disposition of the investigation, including but not limited to any disciplinary actions recommended or taken, any response by the accused, military endorsement(s), and any other follow-up or action;

c. All audio, video, and/or digital recordings and transcripts thereof of witness interviews or statements; and

d. Any Internal Affairs “Investigative Package” associated with this investigation.

2. The same records, relating to any investigation initiated as a result of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, filed on July 8, 2022 (Case No. 22STCV22099).

3. The same records, relating to any investigation initiated as a result of Plaintiff’s claim filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on June 23, 2022 and amended on June 28, 2022 (DFEH No. 202206-17386223).

4. The same records, relating to any allegations/complaints and/or investigation(s) of allegations/complaints initiated against Police Officer III, Swan (hereinafter, “Swan”), Lieutenant Busiere (hereinafter, “Busiere”), Lieutenant Tyler (hereinafter, “Tyler”), Captain Herredia (hereinafter, “Herredia”), and/or Sergeant Rios (hereinafter, “Rios”), as a result of complaints of race/ethnicity-based discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation for opposing, reporting, and/or complaining of perceived unlawful conduct/unlawful employment practices, from January 2017 forward (5 years before January 2022, which is the earliest of the wrongdoing alleged in the FAC occurred).

5. The same records, relating to all materials related to the LAPD Internal Affairs Investigation identified as CF No. 23-000564.

6. The same records, relating to all complaints and/or investigations initiated against Swan, Busiere, Tyler, Herredia, and/or Rios as a result of Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation for opposing, reporting, and/or complaining of perceived unlawful conduct/unlawful employment practices.

7. The same records, relating to all documents containing allegations/complaints of discrimination, harassment, and/or or retaliation against Swan, Busiere, Tyler, Herredia, and/or Rios from January 2017 forward (5 years before January 2022, which is the earliest of the wrongdoing alleged in the FAC occurred).

8. The same records, relating to all documents containing/pertaining to allegations, reports, complaints, and/or investigations from January 2017 forward (5 years before January 2022, which is the earliest of the wrongdoing alleged in the FAC occurred) in any way to Swan, Busiere, Tyler, Herredia, and/or Rios: preparing/submitting reports that are false, misleading, and/or less than fully forthcoming; making statements that are false, misleading, and/or less than fully forthcoming; engaging/participating in alleged acts of planting evidence; engaging and/or participating in alleged acts of failing to report or covering up alleged violation(s) of department policy/law; using excessive force; and/or responding to complaints or making statements in connection with investigation(s) into complaint(s), in a manner that is false, misleading and/or less than fully forthcoming

PLThe City contends that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad. The Court disagrees. In the Court’s view, the Plaintiff has shown good cause for disclosure of the records she is seeking through her Pitchess motion. The affidavits supporting the motion establish a plausible factual foundation for the materiality of the records to Plaintiff’s FEHA claims for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Specifically, Plaintiff’s requests in categories 4 and 6-8 set forth above are limited to the records related to the five officers whom Plaintiff alleges either engaged in discriminatory and harassing behavior towards her; engaged in retaliation towards her; or failed to prevent the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against her. As to records in category 1-3, and 5, Haggerty v. Superior Court (Guindazola) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1087 establishes that an internal affairs investigation directly related to the allegations in the litigation may be disclosed through an order granting a Pitchess motion.

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

The Court is inclined to grant the ex parte application to continue the trial, although not for the 120 days that Plaintiff seeks. The Court is of the view that a continuance of just shy 90 days, to October 28, 2024 is appropriate.