Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: BC662764, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC662764    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Marshay M. Wallace (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on May 11, 2022 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”) and Julio Garcia, Jr. (“Garcia”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) hostile work environment sexual harassment, (2) race and sex discrimination, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent and correct discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) battery.

Plaintiff now moves “for an order compelling the production of police officer files and records regarding Javier Rodriguez, Karla Hidalgo, Elsa Zavala, Jessica Carrington, Michael Varela, and William Brigges and any and all information and documentation regarding any allegations against them, investigations done regarding their conduct, and any corrective actions taken against them.” The County opposes. 

Discussion

There is a special two-step procedure for securing disclosure of peace officer personnel records. ((Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.) First, 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, as well as the time and place of the hearing. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(1).) The motion must be accompanied by 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).) This is a so-called “Pitchess” motion, derived from Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

The Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b) “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.) However, a declaration based upon information and belief and containing hearsay may be used to evidence good cause in support of a Pitchess motion. ((Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1086.) 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 v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1025.) All that is required is the presentation of a scenario that might have or could have occurred, i.e., a “relatively low threshold.” ((Uybungco v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048); see also Blumberg v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1248 (the good cause requirement of section 1043(b) “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’”); 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.’”).)

Second, if the court finds good cause then an in camera hearing must be held. ((Slayton v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 61.) After personally 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” (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (a); (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1226.) 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); see Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1039-1040 (overruled on other grounds).)

In terms of procedure, notice of the motion must be served in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) on the parties and on the governmental agency having the records. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a).) The agency is required to notify the individual officer whose records are sought. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (c); see also Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (d) [“No hearing upon a motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with the notice provisions of this section except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for noncompliance, or upon a waiver of the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having the records.”].)

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s proof of service filed with the motion indicates that

“Attorneys for Defendant COLA & Garcia Jr.” and “Attorney for Defendant Garcia Jr.” were

served with the motion. However, the proof of service does not appear to indicate that any government agency with custody and control of the records was served. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of the motion provides, “[w]ritten notice of this motion has been provided to Defendant, by and through its counsel per Evidence Code §1043(a).”  (Burritt Decl., ¶ 20.)

Under Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a), “[i]n any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records, as follows:…” (Emphasis added.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requisite procedural requirements under Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a) here.

In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion well exceeds the applicable page limit. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d), “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages. In a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 20 pages. No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages. The page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion consists of 21 pages. Plaintiff does not appear to cite any Court order authorizing her to include additional pages in her memorandum of points and authorities.    

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  February 27, 2025                    ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court