Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV38146, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38146    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Cristina Carrillo

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant County of Los Angeles

Motion to Compel Disclosure of Police Records, Including Investigative Documents

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Cristina Carrillo (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint in this action on May 9, 2023, against defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), alleging nine causes of action for (1) unlawful retaliation (Lab. Code, § 1102.5); (2) failure to accommodate; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) disparate treatment discrimination; (5) harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA;        (7) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; (8) violation of the California Family Rights Act; and (9) interference with pregnancy disability leave rights.

Plaintiff now moves the court for an order, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043, directing Defendant to make available and produce documents that are responsive to the following demand: any and all documents contained within IAB’s investigative file for Case No. IV2556419, including interview transcripts, interview audio recordings, investigative summaries, and documentary and electronic evidence reviewed by the investigators.  (Simms Decl., ¶ 5.)

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

Plaintiff contends that there is good cause to disclose the documents requested because (1) a Police of Equity Complaint was filed on her behalf with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Intake Specialist Unit, in which Plaintiff complained about the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation outlined in Plaintiff’s complaint, and (2) the information sought by this motion (i) relates to the IAB investigation initiated against Captain Jodi L. Hutak, Sergeant Annie J. Walters, Deputy Stefani R. Cirino Garcia, and Ms. Blossie L. Johnson, regarding the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation that Plaintiff suffered, (ii) may be used to impeach individuals or contradict other evidence presented by Defendant, and (iii) may lead to the discovery of other facts regarding the wrongful conduct described in Plaintiff’s complaint.  (Simms Decl., ¶ 6; SAC ¶¶ 25, 26-28, 32, 36 [describing conduct by Captain Hutak and Sergeant Walters].)  Defendant contends that the request is overbroad and ambiguous.

The court finds that Plaintiff has established that the information sought by this motion is material to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against her based on her pregnancy-related disability, lactation needs, and the complaints that she made to Defendant.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3); Simms Decl., ¶ 6; SAC ¶¶ 1, 25-27, 31-32, 34.)  Plaintiff’s counsel has also stated her reasonable belief that Defendant, as Plaintiff’s employer, is the governmental agency that has custody of the records or information from the records.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3); Simms Decl., ¶ 3.) 

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for the production of records described in Plaintiff’s notice of motion and therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b).)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Cristina Carrillo’s motion to compel disclosure of police records, including investigative documents.

            The court orders the custodian of records for the County of Los Angeles to appear and produce the documents set forth below for an in camera review by the court on _____________, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders the custodian of records for the County of Los Angeles, or its agents, to produce the following documents:

1.     All documents contained within IAB’s investigative file for Case No. IV2556419, including, but not limited to, interview transcripts, interview audio recordings, the identities of those performing the investigation and interviews, investigative summaries, and documentary and electronic evidence reviewed by the investigators.

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 plaintiff Cristina Carrillo to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 28, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court