Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01351, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01351 Hearing Date: May 28, 2025 Dept: G
Defendants’
Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion)
Respondent: Non-Party Los Angeles Police
Department [No opposition by opposing party.]
TENTATIVE RULING
The motion
is GRANTED IN PART and otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
This is a
motor vehicle negligence action. Plaintiffs Christine Sandoval, Jacob Sandoval
by and through his guardian Christine Sandoval, and Logan Sandoval by and
through his guardian Christine Sandoval sued defendants Hub Group Tracking
Incorporated (“Hub Group”), Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”),
and Michael John Denmon (“Denmon”) on May 3, 2023, asserting claims for (1)
Negligence – Wrongful Death (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60), and (2) Negligence – Motor
Vehicle.
Plaintiffs
allege the defendants negligently owned, operated, and/or maintained a truck
that Denmon negligently drove in the scope of his employment with Hub Group,
causing a collision on eastbound Interstate 210 on April 15, 2023 that killed
decedent Baldemar Jerrold Sandoval (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs are Decedents’ surviving
spouse and children.
Hub Group
and Denmon cross-complained against new defendant Velocity Vehicle Group (“VVG")
for indemnity, etc. on April 5, 2024, and VVG filed a reciprocal
cross-complaint on May 29, 2024.
On March 17,
2025, VVG filed the instant motion for discovery of peace officer personnel
records related to Decedent, who was a Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”)
officer at the time of the accident. On May 9, 2025, the LAPD filed an
opposition to VVG’s motion, and on May 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Joinder to
the LAPD’s opposition. On May 20, 2025, VVG replied.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
VVG requests
judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ complaint. The request is denied; the court does
not need to take judicial notice of documents appearing within the same case
file.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
Penal Code
section 832.7 imposes confidentiality protections for the personnel records of
peace officer and custodial officers maintained by their government employers.
The records may be obtained during civil discovery, but only if the party
seeking disclosure follows the procedure and makes the showings required by
Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046, the “Pitchess Statutes”:
“(a) In any case in which discovery or
disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records … the
party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion . . .
.
(b) The motion shall include 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.
·
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(a)-(b); see Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.)
“Under the Pitchess statutes, a public entity that employs peace officers must investigate and retain citizen complaints of any officer misconduct, such as the use of excessive force. (Pen. Code, § 832.5.) Litigants, upon a showing of good cause, are given limited access to records of such complaints and investigations (Evid. Code, §§ 1043, 1045), but such records are otherwise ‘confidential’ and may ‘not be disclosed’ (Pen. Code, §§ 832.7, subd. (a), 832.8, subd. (e)). Also protected as ‘confidential’ are ‘[p]eace officer ... personnel records’ and ‘information obtained from these records.’ (Id., § 832.7, subd. (a).) Such ‘personnel records’ include an officer's personal and family information, medical history, election of benefits (id., § 832.8, subds. (a), (b) & (c)), as well as matters related to the officer's “advancement, appraisal, or discipline” (id., subd. (d)). In addition, confidentiality applies to any information that ‘would constitute an unwarranted invasion of [a peace officer's] personal privacy.’ (Id., § 832.8, subd. (f).) (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (59 Cal.4th 59, 68.)
Good cause for disclosure of peace officer personnel records is addressed solely to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court should reverse the trial court’s determination only upon a showing that the trial court’s discretion has been abused. (See People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636; Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079.)
Discussion
VVG argues Decedent’s personnel records are discoverable because they are material to Plaintiffs’ claims for future economic damages and “relevant to the assessment and evaluation of Decedent’s comparative fault in the accident, including but not limited to risk-taking behavior; inattention; and training and abilities related to operating a vehicle.” (Not. of Mot., 2:7-18.) Otherwise, VVG argues without specifics that the records are material because they relate to “VVG’s affirmative defenses”, that they “are potentially admissible as direct or impeachment evidence”, and that “they will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.” (Ibid.)
The court is not persuaded by the latter three points. The court finds these points amount to conclusory assertions that the records may be relevant at trial, not specific to this case. The court considers only whether the matters of future economic damages or Decedent’s vehicle-operation experience justify disclosure, since those are VVG’s only arguments specific to this case.
Also, the materials requested are overbroad and not specifically or narrowly tailored to meet VVG’s needs. VVG effectively requests the entirety of Decedent’s personnel file, including, without qualification, records related to “discipline” and “abilities.” The court finds that much of the requested material has nothing to with future compensation or allegations of motor vehicle negligence.
As to claims for future economic damages, VVG failed to demonstrate good cause for disclosure of all of Decedent’s personnel records solely in order to ascertain future economic damages. As LAPD points out, information related to earnings, raises, and work schedules are not “personnel records” within the Pitchess definition. (See Pen. Code, § 832.8(a).) Decedent’s likelihood of promotion (or demotion) might be uncovered by other means. It is VVG’s burden to narrowly tailor their request and to show good cause with specific facts. VVG has not carried this burden. Therefore, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to VVG’s request for records bearing solely on future economic damages.
As to motor vehicle negligence, VVG’s request is again overbroad. Decedent’s general performance on the job does not relate to his potential negligence in this particular incident. If the LAPD recorded instances of motor vehicle negligence while Decedent was on the job, on the other hand, that may be relevant, just as a past accident history would be relevant to any motor-vehicle negligence case.
As such, the court orders an in camera review of Decedent’s personnel records with LAPD of the records of (1) Decedent’s advancement, appraisal, or discipline, and (2) complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which Decedent participated, to the extent that any of the records directly pertain to Decedent’s operation of a motor vehicle. The court intends to review Decedent’s personnel file for this nexus. To the extent information related to operation of a motor vehicle appears in the records categories identified above, the court will order disclosure. If the same records include other information not ordered disclosed, the court will order that information redacted by LAPD and the redacted, responsive information be disclosed. Redacted material will not be subject to a disclosure order by the court.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for disclosure of peace officer personnel records is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The court sets a confidential in camera review for a date to be determined at the hearing on May 28, 2025.
The Custodian of Records for the Los Angeles Police Department shall attend the in camera hearing.