Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV03981, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03981 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
23STCV03981 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
May
31, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: plaintiff’s motion for discovery of peace
officer personnel and other documents (pitchess motion) |
||
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dalila Alcantara
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant County of Los Angeles
Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel and Other Documents (Pitchess
Motion)
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in
connection with this motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dalila Alcantara
(“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant County of Los Angeles
(“Defendant”) on February 23, 2023, alleging one cause of action for
retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
Plaintiff now moves the court for an order, pursuant to Evidence Code
section 1043, directing Defendant, including the County of Los Angeles
Probation Department, to make available documents that are responsive to the
following 18 categories:
1.
Plaintiff’s complaints made to Defendant from
January 1, 2021 to the present.
2.
Any internal investigations, including the
conclusions of such investigations, into any of Plaintiff’s oral and/or written
complaints made to Defendant from January 1, 2019 through the present.
3.
Any internal investigations, including any
County Policy of Equity Complaints, referring to or relating to Plaintiff,
including any witness statements or interviews.
4.
Documents evidencing, pertaining, or relating to
all steps taken by Defendant since January 1, 2019 to prevent retaliation from
occurring at the workplace, including at the location(s) where Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant.
5.
Complaints of retaliation to Defendant by any
of Defendant’s employees from January 1, 2019 to the present.
6.
The identity of the complainant, date, and
nature of complaint, of each and every complaint to Defendant of harassment
and/or retaliation by Ray Levya and/or Adolfo Gonzalez from January 1, 2019 to
the present.
7.
Documents relating to the October 2021 meeting
held by Fesia Davenport regarding Los Angeles County’s compliance with the
Board of State and Community Corrections (“BSCC”) regulations including, but
not limited to, any minutes taken during the meeting.
8.
Managerial Appraisal (“MAPP”) ratings for all
Deputy Directors in 2021.
9.
Plaintiff and her MAPP score from January 2021
through the present.
10.
MAPP ratings for all Deputy Directors from
January 1, 2021 to the present.
11.
MAPP ratings for Deputy Directors of the
Probation Department from 2018 through the present.
12.
The experience and qualifications of Karen
Fletcher, including her resume.
13.
The experience and qualifications of the current
Deputy Director of the Probation Department.
14.
The experience and qualifications of each
individual who has held the Deputy Director position of the Probation
Department since Plaintiff held the position.
15.
Documents and communications relating or
referring to Plaintiff’s application for the Deputy Director position submitted
in 2022.
16.
The identity of each individual who has held the
position of Deputy Director of the Probation Department since Plaintiff held
the position.
17.
References to Plaintiff and her duties as Deputy
Director of the Probation Department, including but not limited to any meeting
minutes from meetings at which Plaintiff was present as Deputy Director.
18. References
to Board of State and Community Corrections issues, including employee staffing
from January 1, 2021 to December 1, 2021 for the institutions that Plaintiff
oversaw.
(Notice
of Mot., pp. 3:12-5:3.)
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:¿
(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 asserts that there is good cause to disclose the information
requested by category numbers 1-18 because the information sought is related to
her claims that she was retaliated against by Defendant for engaging in
protected activity in (1) making reports regarding the legal violations present
at the various Los Angeles County Juvenile Halls, and (2) filing a complaint
against Chief Gonzalez. (Compl., ¶¶ 27
[Plaintiff informed BSCC regulators that the County was not in legal compliance
with BSCC’s action plan], 28 [Plaintiff was thereafter informed that she was
not to speak at any future meetings], 29 [Plaintiff complained to Karen
Fletcher that Chief Gonzalez and Local 721 union were harassing her], 30-31, 44
[Plaintiff was demoted and retaliated against for engaging in those activities].)
First, the court finds that Plaintiff has established that the
information sought by categories numbered 1-3, 6, and 8-17 is material to
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant retaliated against her for disclosing that
the County was not in compliance with BSCC’s action plan and for complaining of
harassment by Chief Gonzalez by demoting her, lowering her MAPP score to three,
and transferring her without giving her a Y-rating (meaning that any loss of
pay suffered due to the transfer would stand).
(Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3); Compl., ¶¶ 27-31, 35-36, 44; Sorejian
Decl., ¶¶ 19-30.) The court however,
notes that category number 16 may require Defendant to produce a burdensome
amount of documents. Thus, the court
finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for the discovery of
information described in category 16, but the court will only require Defendant
to produce the documents that are sufficient to establish the identity of each
individual who has held the position of Deputy Director of the Probation
Department since Plaintiff held the position.
The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has established good cause
for the discovery of documents and information set forth in categories 1-3, 6,
and 8-17, as modified above. (Evid.
Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) The court
further notes that Plaintiff’s counsel has stated counsel’s reasonable belief
that Defendant “is in possession, custody, and control of the records sought
and the information contained therein” as required by Evidence Code section
1043. (Sorejian Decl., ¶ 24; Evid. Code,
§ 1043, subd. (b)(3).)
Second, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden to
establish that the information sought by category numbers 4, 7, and 18 may be
obtained pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043. These categories do not appear to seek the
disclosure of “peace or custodial officer personnel records or records
maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from
those records[.]” (Evid. Code, § 1043,
subd. (a).) Specifically, these requests
demand the disclosure of information relating to general steps taken by
Defendant to prevent retaliation (No. 4), the October 2021 meeting held by
Fesia Davenport regarding Defendant’s compliance with the BSCC regulations (No.
7), and employee staffing issues (No. 18).
None of the three categories seeks the
disclosure of information regarding complaints by members of the public against
the personnel of a department or agency in this state that employs peace
officers. (Pen. Code, § 832.5, subd. (a)
[requiring each department or agency that employes peace officers to establish
a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against such
personnel].) Similarly, the categories do
not seek the disclosure of personal data, medical history, employee benefits,
employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline, or complaints or investigations
of complaints of a peace or custodial officer, and therefore do not seek the
disclosure of personnel records within the meaning of Penal Code section 832.8. (Pen. Code, § 832.8, subd. (a).) Moreover, while the court acknowledges that
number 18 requests information regarding “BSCC issues including employee
staffing” for the specified time period, the disclosure of that information
would not appear to require the disclosure of personal data of an employee, nor
would disclosure “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” so as
to bring this request within the scope of Evidence Code section 1043. (Pen. Code, § 832.8, subd. (a)(6) [defining
personnel records to include “[a]ny other information the disclosure of which
would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”].)
Third, the court finds that the request for information made in category
number 5 is overbroad and includes records that are not material to the subject
matter involved in the pending litigation.
The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause
for this discovery. (Evid. Code, § 1043,
subd. (b)(3).)
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff
has demonstrated good cause for the production of records relating to the first
through third, sixth, and eighth through 17th categories of information set
forth in Plaintiff’s notice of motion, as modified by the court above, and
therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion as to those categories.
ORDER
The court grants in part plaintiff
Dalila Alcantara’s motion for discovery of peace officer personnel and other
documents (Pitchess motion) as follows.
The court orders the custodian(s) of
records for the County of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles Probation
Department 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(s) of
records for the County of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles Probation
Department to produce documents responsive to the following categories:
1.
Plaintiff’s complaints made to Defendant from
January 1, 2021 to the present.
2.
Any internal investigations, including the
conclusions of such investigations, into any of Plaintiff’s oral and/or written
complaints made to Defendant from January 1, 2019 through the present.
3.
Any internal investigations, including any
County Policy of Equity Complaints, referring to or relating to Plaintiff,
including any witness statements or interviews.
4.
The identity of the complainant, date, and
nature of complaint, of each and every complaint to Defendant of harassment
and/or retaliation by Ray Levya and/or Adolfo Gonzalez from January 1, 2019 to
the present.
5.
Managerial Appraisal (“MAPP”) ratings for all
Deputy Directors in 2021.
6.
Plaintiff and her MAPP score from January 2021
through the present.
7.
MAPP ratings for all Deputy Directors from
January 1, 2021 to the present.
8.
MAPP ratings for Deputy Directors of the
Probation Department from 2018 through the present.
9.
The experience and qualifications of Karen
Fletcher, including her resume.
10.
The experience and qualifications of the current
Deputy Director of the Probation Department.
11.
The experience and qualifications of each
individual who has held the Deputy Director position of the Probation
Department since Plaintiff held the position.
12.
Documents and communications relating or
referring to Plaintiff’s application for the Deputy Director position submitted
in 2022.
13.
Documents that are sufficient to establish the
identity of each individual who has held the position of Deputy Director of the
Probation Department since Plaintiff held the position.
14. References
to Plaintiff and her duties as Deputy Director of the Probation Department,
including but not limited to any meeting minutes from meetings at which
Plaintiff was present as Deputy Director.
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 Dalila
Alcantara to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court