Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV23699, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23699    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff William Faulkner    

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendant City of Los Angeles

Motion for Production of “Pitchess” Documents

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff William Faulkner (“Plaintiff”) filed this FEHA action against defendants City of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles Police Department on June 25, 2021, alleging three causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; and (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA.

Plaintiff now moves the court, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043, for an order directing defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) to produce records responsive to the following four categories: (1) any Los Angeles Police Department investigations into any and/or all of the allegations in the instant lawsuit, including (i) materials used and/or considered during the investigation, such as addenda items, recorded witness interviews and/or statements, photos, correspondence, witness lists, rough notes, and the investigator’s log, (ii) all materials related to the disposition of the investigation, including any disciplinary actions recommended or taken, and (iii) any response by the accused, and any other follow-up or action; (2) all writings from the Internal Affairs complaint investigation against Plaintiff for allegedly failing to telephonically interview candidates and/or falsifying official electronic documents, along with all audio recordings of witnesses interviewed; (3) any other complaint investigations related to discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation against Sergeant II David Williams from 2013 through the present; and (4) any other complaint investigations related to retaliation against Captain III Aaron McCraney from 2013 through the present.  (Notice of Motion, p. 2:4-20.)

DISCUSSION

There is a special two-step procedure for obtaining disclosure of peace or custodial officer personnel records.  (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.)  First, the party seeking disclosure must file a motion that includes all of the following:

(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 that 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.

(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.

(Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b).)

The “good cause” declaration must be sufficiently specific “to preclude the possibility of [the movant] simply casting about for any helpful information.”  (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.)  The moving party need show only a “plausible factual foundation” for discovery -- i.e., a scenario of officer misconduct that might occur or could have occurred.  (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1026; see also Blumberg v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1248 [“‘[T]he good cause requirement embodies a “relatively low threshold” for discovery’ [citation], under which a defendant need demonstrate only ‘a logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge’ and describe with some specificity ‘how the discovery being sought would support such a defense or how it would impeach the officer’s version of the events’ [citation].”]; Becerrada v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 409, 413 [“A showing of good cause is measured by ‘relatively relaxed standards’ that serve to ‘insure the production’ for trial court review of ‘all potentially relevant documents’”].)  A declaration by counsel, on information and belief, may be sufficient.  (People v. Oppel (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1153, fn. 6.)

Second, if the court finds good cause, then an in camera examination must be held.  (Slayton v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 61.)  After examining the records in camera, the trial court shall order disclosure of peace officer personnel records that are “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.”  (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (a); People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1226.)  The court must exclude from disclosure “[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)(2).)  “In determining relevance where the issue in litigation concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency, the court shall consider whether the information sought may be obtained from other records maintained by the employing agency in the regular course of agency business which would not necessitate the disclosure of individual personnel records.”  (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (c).)  If disclosure is ordered, the court must also order that the disclosed information may not be used “for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.”  (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (e).)

In support of his motion, Plaintiff submits a declaration from his counsel.  The declaration explains that the requested discovery is relevant because it may demonstrate that (1) Defendant’s investigation of Plaintiff was biased and/or inadequate; (2) Defendant ratified the ongoing discrimination and/or retaliation against Plaintiff by refusing to take corrective action despite being on notice of the unlawful conduct based on its own internal affairs investigation; (3) Defendant’s failure to properly investigate the claims against Plaintiff constitutes further retaliation against Plaintiff; (4) Sergeant Williams discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff, based on any “me too” evidence and other relevant discovery that the information could lead to; and (5) Captain III McCraney retaliated against Plaintiff, based on any “me too” and other relevant evidence.  (Nair Decl., ¶ 6.)   The declaration further states that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably believes that Defendant has custody and control of the records or the information from the Internal Affairs investigation sought, and that the information requested is not available through any other source.  (Nair Decl., ¶ 11.)

In opposition, Defendant challenges only the third and fourth categories of information sought, consisting of information relating to Sergeant Williams and Captain III McCraney.  (Opp., p. 3:14 [“Defendant does not oppose Requests 1 and 2 subject to a protective order”].)  As to these categories, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad, and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate materiality.  The court finds that Plaintiff has established that his requests are material to the subject matter of this litigation.  As set forth above, Plaintiff requests information regarding (1) complaints made against Sergeant Williams for discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, and (2) complaints made against Captain III McCraney for retaliation.  The requests seek information regarding complaints made against Sergeant Williams and Captain III McCraney regarding any misconduct (i.e., discrimination, harassment, and retaliation), that is similar to the misconduct alleged by Plaintiff in his Complaint.  (Compl., ¶¶ 15, 22-27; California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1021.)  

The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing good cause for the discovery of this information because Plaintiff has shown (1) a “‘plausible factual foundation’ for how the records are material to the subject matter” of this action, and (2) that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably believes that the information requested is in the custody and control of Defendant.  (Riske v. Superior Court (2017) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655.) 

The court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating good cause for the production of records relating to (1) the Los Angeles Police Department investigations into the allegations set forth in the Complaint, (2) the Internal Affairs investigation against Plaintiff, and (3) complaint investigations (i) against Sergeant Williams related to discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, and (ii) against Captain McCraney related to retaliation.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).)

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff William Faulkner’s motion for production of “Pitchess” documents.

The court orders the custodian of records for defendant City of Los Angeles to appear and produce the documents set forth below for in camera review by the court on __________, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53.

The court orders the custodian of records for defendant City of Los Angeles to produce the following documents:

(1)   Any Los Angeles Police Department investigation(s) of the allegations of the instant lawsuit, and specifically, any and all materials used and/or considered during the investigation, including but not limited to, addenda items, recorded witness interviews and/or statements (including audio, video, and/or digital recordings and transcripts thereof), photos, correspondence, witness lists, rough notes, the investigator’s log; and any and all materials related to the disposition of investigation, including but not limited to, any disciplinary actions recommended or taken; any response by the accused, and any other follow-up or action.

(2)   All writings from the Internal Affairs complaint investigation against Plaintiff for allegedly failing to telephonically interview candidates and/or falsifying official electronic documents, along with all audio recordings of witnesses interviewed.

(3)   Any other complaint investigations, related to discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, against Sgt. II David Williams, from 2013 (5 years prior to the unlawful conduct alleged in this lawsuit) to present.

(4)   Any other complaint investigations, related to retaliation, against Captain III Aaron McCraney, from 2013 (5 years prior to the unlawful conduct alleged in this lawsuit) to present.

The court orders that all such documents shall be produced for an in camera examination by the court.  The court will conduct an in camera examination of the records to determine the relevance of the materials to this action.  (People v. Gill (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 743, 749.)  The scope of the in camera examination will be governed by Evidence Code section 1045, subdivisions (b) and (c).

The court orders plaintiff William Faulkner to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 15, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court