Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV12598, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12598    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Ford Motor Company and South Bay Ford

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiffs Louise Gill, individually and as successor-in-interest to Dennis Patrick Gill and Tiffany Gill, deceased, and as Guardian ad Litem for plaintiff Ethan Gill

Motion for Disclosure of Peace Officer Records

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Louise Gill, individually and as successor-in-interest to Dennis Patrick Gill and Tiffany Gill, deceased, and Ethan Gill, a minor (“Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful death action against defendants Ford Motor Company and South Bay Ford (“Defendants”) on April 14, 2022.

Defendants now move the court, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043, for an order directing Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department, the County of Los Angeles, or its agents, to produce any records in Deputy Dennis Gill’s personnel file that are responsive to the following categories:  (1) payroll and benefits documentation, including records regarding employee advancement and compensation; (2) health records and medical information; (3) attendance records; (4) workers’ compensation claims; (5) employment contract(s); (6) employment membership application(s); (7) performance evaluations; and (8) personnel records.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.’”  (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).)  

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that there is good cause to disclose the documents requested in the eight categories set forth above because they are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim for loss of income and earning capacity and impaired future earning capacity.  (Compl., Prayer, ¶ 3.)

Defendants submit the declaration of their counsel in support of this motion.  The declaration states that Defendants and counsel believe that (1) information regarding Mr. Gill’s pay and benefits is directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim for loss of income and earning capacity; (2) Mr. Gill’s payroll and employee benefit records will reflect his total income prior to the subject accident; and (3) any information contained in Mr. Gill’s personnel file concerning his prior advancement, or potential for future advancement and job retention, as well as information regarding his health records, medical information, and workers’ compensation claims are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for loss of future earning capacity.  (Hansen Decl., ¶ 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs (1) state that they do not oppose the production of information as to categories numbered one, two, and seven, but request that the relevant time period be limited to five years before the subject incident; (2) contend that categories three, four, and five do not appear to be relevant to this action, but request that production be limited to five years before the subject incident if disclosure is ordered; (3) request that category six be limited to five years before the subject incident; and (4) argue that category eight is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and therefore request the court deny the motion as to this category.

First, the court finds that, as to the eighth category requesting Mr. Gill’s personnel records, it is overbroad because it includes records that are not material to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation, and therefore finds that Defendants have not established good cause for this discovery.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).)  

Second, the court finds that Defendants have established that the information sought by categories one through seven are material to Plaintiffs’ requests for loss of income and earnings and impaired future earning capacity made in the Prayer of their Complaint.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3); Hansen Decl., ¶ 6.)  However, the court finds that the disclosure of the information requested in connection with the first through fourth and seventh categories should be limited from the five years preceding the subject incident, which occurred July 25, 2020, to the present.  (Compl., ¶ 1 [alleging that the incident occurred on July 25, 2020].) 

The court therefore finds that Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating good cause for the production of records relating to the following categories of information included in Deputy Dennis Gill’s personnel file, subject to the limitation set forth above: (1) payroll and benefits documentation, including records regarding employee advancement and compensation; (2) health records and medical information; (3) attendance records; (4) workers’ compensation claims; (5) employment contract(s); (6) employment membership application(s); and (7) performance evaluations.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).)

ORDER

The court grants defendants Ford Motor Company and South Bay Ford’s motion for disclosure of peace officer records.

The court orders the custodian of records for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to appear and produce the documents set forth below for an in camera review by the court on ____________, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53.

The court orders the custodian of records for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Los Angeles, or its agents, to produce the following documents that are included in Deputy Dennis Gill’s personnel file, subject to the limitations set forth below:

1. Payroll and benefits documentation, including records regarding employee advancement and compensation, limited to the period between July 25, 2015 to the present.
2. Health records and medical information, limited to the period between July 25, 2015 to the present.
3. Attendance records, limited to the period between July 25, 2015 to the present.
4. Workers’ compensation claims, limited to the period between July 25, 2015 to the present.
5. Employment contract(s).
6. Employment membership application(s).
7. Performance evaluations, limited to the period between July 25, 2015 to the 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 793, 749.)  The scope of the in camera examination will be governed by Evidence Code section 1045, subdivisions (b) and (c).

The court orders defendants Ford Motor Company and South Bay Ford to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 17, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court