Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 20STCP01843, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCP01843, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Antoine Reed (“Petitioner”), a self-represented litigant, seeks a writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act (the “CPRA”) directing Respondent City of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or the “City”) to produce personnel records of four police officers employed by the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD” or the “Department”). The City has no responsive records with respect to two officers, so the writ is denied in this respect. Petitioner’s opening brief, which was filed on October 8, 2024, makes clear that he is requesting additional records concerning the other two officers, and the City is searching for potentially responsive records. Therefore, the court continues the hearing on the petition as it relates to these two officers.

On February 6, 2019, Petitioner made a CPRA request to the LAPD for the following records pertaining to Officer J. Miller, Badge No. 37652; Officer Gutierrez, Badge No. 31113; Detective Ramirez 31913, Badge No. 31913; and Detective Rivas, Badge No. 24217:

c) “all proven cases of dishonesty related to reporting, investigation, and prosecution of crimes (including perjury and destruction of evidence).”

Petitioner requested these personnel records pursuant to amendments to Penal Code section 832.7 made by the California Legislature in Senate Bill (“SB”) 1421, effective January 1, 2019. On February 7, 2019, the LAPD mailed a letter, via United States Postal Service (the “USPS”), to Petitioner informing him that a court-ordered stay related to SB 1421 prevented the LAPD from complying with the CPRA Request at that time. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 6 and Exh. 2.) On March 21, 2019, the LAPD mailed a letter to Petitioner, via the USPS, informing him: (1) It had received his CPRA Request; (2) It had searched for and did not identify any records pertaining to sustained complaints of sexual assaults or dishonesty by the four officers; and (3) It does possess responsive records for the other two items in the CPRA Request and was still searching for the records responsive to those items. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exh. 3.)

Between March 2019 and October 2020, the LAPD searched for and reviewed records responsive to the CPRA Request. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 8.) On or about August 26, 2019, the LAPD responded to a letter received from Petitioner in June 2019 and informed him that it was still searching for records responsive to his request. (Id., ¶¶ 10-11, Exh. 5.)

On June 4, 2020, Petitioner filed his original petition for writ of mandate seeking to enforce the CPRA. The petition was not properly served on Respondent.

On July 30, 2020, LAPD mailed a letter to Petitioner, via the USPS, informing him that the LAPD had identified disclosable records “relating to discharge of a firearm, use of force resulting in great bodily injury, use of force resulting in death for the following officers: 1. Jose Gutierrez, Serial No. 31113: 2003 516, GBI, 9/01/2005 2. Maria Rivas, Serial No. 24217: F069-91.” (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. 6.) The LAPD also informed Petitioner that it had not identified any responsive records for Officer Miller and Detective Ramirez. (Ibid.)

On August 19, 2020, LAPD mailed a letter to Petitioner, via the USPS, providing him with a link to records related to Officer Gutierrez. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 13, Exh. 7.) In or about October 2020, LAPD completed its search for records responsive to the CPRA Request.

(Id. ¶ 14.) On or about October 29, 2020, the LAPD mailed a letter package to Petitioner, via USPS, providing him with the responsive records related to Detective Rivas and Officer Gutierrez without seeking any reimbursements for the printing, copying, or mailing costs.

(Id. ¶ 14, Exh. 8.) Pursuant to the LAPD’s practice, these records were only the summaries or reports for the incidents involving Officer Gutierrez and Detective Rivas. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) The LAPD’s practice is to inquire if the requestor wants records in addition to the summaries and reports. (Ibid.)

Between October 29, 2020, and July 23, 2023, the LAPD did not receive any communication from Petitioner regarding his CPRA Request. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 17.) To ensure that Petitioner received the responsive records, on July 12, 2023, the LAPD mailed to Petitioner the same letter package that it had previously mailed on October 29, 2020. (Id. ¶ 17 and Exh. 9-10.)

On May 28, 2024, Petitioner filed the first amended petition for writ of mandate. On July 10, 2024, the court held a trial setting conference, which was attended by Petitioner and counsel for Respondent. The court set the petition for hearing on January 10, 2025, and set a briefing schedule. On August 6, 2024, Respondent filed an answer to the first amended petition. On October 8, 2024, Petitioner filed his opening brief. On November 21, 2024, Respondent filed and served its opposition brief. No reply brief has been filed by Petitioner.

Counsel for Respondent represents that the first amended petition and opening brief were the first communications from Petitioner since May 2019, that “communicated to LAPD the nature of his dissatisfaction with LAPD’s response to his CPRA Request.” (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 4.) As an example, Petitioner asserts in his opening brief that Respondent has failed to produce “complainant reports,” “contact information,” “factual findings of the reviewing officer,” and “statements made by involved parties” that are responsive to the CPRA Request. (Opening Brief (“OB”) 6:13-16.)

Pursuant to the CPRA—Government Code sections 7921.000, et seq.[1]—individual citizens have a right to access government records. Article 1, Section 3(b) of the Constitution affirms that “[t]he people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.” The Constitution mandates that the CPRA be “broadly construed,” while any statute “that limits the right of access” must be “narrowly construed.” (See National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2020) 9 Cal.5th 488, 507.) “Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.” (Gov. Code § 7922.525(b).)

To establish an agency has a duty to disclose under the CPRA, the petitioner must show that: (1) The record qualifies as a public record; and (2) The record is in the possession of the agency. (See Anderson-Barker v Superior Court (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 528, 538.) Once that initial burden is met, the agency has the burden to prove “that a particular record is exempt from disclosure.” (Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System v. Superior Court (2013) 195 Cal.App.4th 440, 453.)

Respondent requests judicial notice of two exhibits: (A) California Senate Bill Number 1421, and (B) California Senate Bill Number 16. Petitioner does not oppose the request. The court grants the request under Evidence Code section 452(a) and/or 452(c).

In 2018, the California Legislature enacted SB 1421, which amended the CPRA to require disclosure of records related to police uses of force and misconduct. As relevant to this writ petition, SB 1421 amended Penal Code section 832.7 to provide for disclosure of the following peace officer personnel records:

(A) A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the following:

(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury.

(B)(i) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public.

(C) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.

(See 2018 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 988 (SB 1421).) These provisions of section SB 1421 were effective in 2019 when Petitioner made the CPRA Request.

In 2021, the Legislature enacted SB 16, which amended section 832.7 to expand the types of law enforcement personnel records that are disclosable pursuant to the CPRA. As relevant to this writ petition, SB 16 added the following records to the disclosure requirements of section 832.7: (1) records related to a “sustained finding involving a complaint that alleges unreasonable or excessive force;” (2) records related a “sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using force that is clearly unreasonable or excessive;” (3) “[a]ny record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct… involving prejudice or discrimination…;” and (4) “[a]ny record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that the peace officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.” (See Opposition (“Oppo.”) 4, fn. 2; RJN, Exh. B, pp. 5-6; and 2021 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 402 (SB 16).)

On July 30, 2020, LAPD mailed a letter to Petitioner, via the USPS, informing him that the LAPD had conducted a search for records responsive to the CPRA Request and had not identified any responsive records for Officer Miller and Detective Ramirez. (Robinson ¶ 12, Exh. 6.) In October 2024, after SB 16 became effective, the LAPD again searched for personnel records of the four officers pursuant to the amended provisions of section 832.7 and did not identify any responsive records. (Id. ¶ 16.) Therefore, the petition is denied with respect to the CPRA request for records relating to Officer Miller and Detective Ramirez.

Petitioner’s opening brief, filed on October 8, 2024, provided notice that he was not satisfied with the summaries and reports of incidents involving Officer Gutierrez and Detective Rivas and wants “complainant reports,” “contact information,” “factual findings of the reviewing officer,” and “statements made by involved parties.” The City represents that it is searching for these documents. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 20.) Therefore, the court continues the hearing on the writ as it relates to the CPRA request for records relating to Officer Gutierrez and Detective Rivas.

1. The petition is denied with respect to the CPRA request for records relating to Officer Miller and Detective Ramirez.

2. The court continues the hearing on the writ as it relates to the CPRA request for records relating to Officer Gutierrez and Detective Rivas.

3. The City may file a supplemental opposition concerning these records on or before _________, 2025.

5. The hearing on the petition for writ of mandate is continued to ________, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

[1] The CPRA statutes were re-numbered effective January 1, 2023. Unless otherwise stated, statutory references are to the Government Code.