Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV22172, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22172    Hearing Date: November 15, 2023    Dept: 39

Rigoberto Vasquez v. City of Los Angeles

Case No. 22STCV22172

Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Documents

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Rigoberto Vasquez (“Plaintiff”), a Sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department (the “LAPD”), filed this action against the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), asserting a single cause of action for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5.  Plaintiff alleges that LAPD Captain Johnny Smith used a racial epithet in reference to LAPD Captain German Hurtado and his family, which facilitated an internal affairs investigation.  Because Plaintiff allegedly witnessed the comment, he was interviewed, following which Captain Smith allegedly retaliated against him.  This action followed, and Plaintiff seeks certain discovery from the City of Los Angeles pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 and its progeny. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Penal Code section 832.7 provides that peace officer personnel records are confidential and are not to be disclosed in a civil proceeding except per Evidence Code section 1043.  (Pen. Code, § 832.7.)  Evidence Code section 1043 sets forth a two-step procedure for disclosure of peace officer personnel records.  The party seeking disclosure must file a motion that identifies the peace officer, the agency in possession of the records, a description of the records, who is seeking the records, and the time and place of the hearing.  (Evid. Code, § 1043 subd. (b)(1).)  The moving party must advance a declaration showing good cause for disclosure of the records, setting forth the materiality of the records, and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the requested documents.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).)  The moving party need only show “a plausible scenario of officer misconduct . . . that might or could have occurred.  Such a scenario is plausible because it presents an assertion of specific police misconduct that is both internally consistent and supports the defense proposed to the charges.”  (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026.)  This is a “relatively low threshold for discovery . . . .”  (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83.)  The moving party must give notice of the motion to the parties and to the governmental agency with custody of the records.  (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has satisfied the standard for the Court to conduct an in camera review of the following documents:

1.         The contents of any LAPD internal investigation of Captain Hurtado’s complaint that Captain Smith used a racial epithet;

2.         The contents of any LAPD internal investigation of Plaintiff’s complaint that Captain Smith retaliated against him for cooperating in the LAPD internal investigation of Captain Hurtado’s complaint;

3.         Any prior complaints, and the contents of any LAPD internal investigation, of Captain Smith relating to use of racial epithehts or allegations of racial discrimination; and

4.         Any prior complaints, and the contents of any LAPD internal investigation, of Captain Smith relating to allegations of retaliation. 

The Court finds that the remaining requests by Plaintiff are overbroad and/or would include privileged materials (e.g., counsel’s work product, etc.).  The remaining requested documents also do not relate to the allegations in this case, which are limited to racial discrimination/harassment and retaliation.  (See People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410, 418.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

            2.         The Court orders an in camera review of the document categories contained in this order.

            3.         The in camera review shall occur on ___________, _____ at ___ a.m./p.m.  The Court orders Defendant’s counsel and the custodian of records to appear in-person.

            4.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.