Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00010096-CU-PA-CTL 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00010096-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 27, 2023

09/29/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00010096-CU-PA-CTL KHURSHID VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Tentative Rulings for Sept. 29, 2023

Khurshid v. City of SD, Case No. 2022-10096 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a personal injury case arising out of a traffic accident involving a SDPD vehicle on August 24, 2021 on 45th Street. The Judicial Council form complaint was filed in March of 2022; the City answered in July. ROA 1, 14. At a due-course CMC in August of 2022, the court set the case for trial in August, 2023. ROA 24-28.

The court incorporates for further background the discovery rulings it made on June 23 and July 14, 2023. ROA 70, 93. The discovery problems caused the trial to be continued to next January. ROA 60, 75.

Presently, two more matters scheduled to be heard today: A. Plaintiffs' Pitchess motion.* ROA 79-81.

B. Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel for one of the two plaintiffs.** ROA 73.

There are no moving papers for the latter motion. With respect to the former motion, the City filed opposition and plaintiffs filed reply. ROA 103-106, 110. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are authorized in connection with these motions.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'Among the myriad purposes of the civil discovery statutes is to safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2992454 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KHURSHID VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] 37-2022-00010096-CU-PA-CTL B. There is a 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, i.e., a Pitchess 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 time and place of the hearing. Evid. Code § 1043(b)(1). The motion must be accompanied by a declaration showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure. Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3). 'Good cause for discovery of peace officer personnel records under the statutory scheme exists when the party seeking the discovery shows the 'materiality' of the information to the subject matter of the pending litigation and states upon 'reasonable belief' that the agency has the type of information sought.' Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655. Information is material if it will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial. Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1086.

If the court finds good cause, an in camera hearing must be held. Slayton v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 61; Brown v. Valverde (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1531, 1541. The court, after examining the records in camera, shall order disclosure of peace officer personnel records that are 'relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.' Evid. Code § 1045(a). The court, however, may not order disclosure of: (1) complaints against the officer for conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation [Evid. Code § 1045(b)(1); City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 12]; (2) facts 'so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit' [Evid. Code § 1045(b)(3)]; (3) personnel records of officers not present at the time of the arrest [or conduct alleged to have occurred within a jail] or who have had no contact with the party seeking disclosure [Evid. Code § 1047]; (4) records protected by the official information privilege [Evid.

Code § 1040(b)(2)]; and (5) an officer's opinions concerning an investigation [Haggerty, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1088-89].

C. Motions for leave to withdraw are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 284 and CRC 3.1362.

Counsel are directed to use Judicial Council Forms MC-051, 052 and 053.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. The motion for discovery is denied.

With respect to categories 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for the disclosure of the requested disciplinary and investigatory documents. Although the good cause standard under Evidence Code section 1043 is a 'relatively low threshold for discovery' (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83), a 'good cause' affidavit must be sufficiently specific to preclude the possibility of a party 'simply casting about for any helpful information.' People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226. Here, counsel's supporting declaration is insufficient as it merely asserts in conclusory fashion that the requested records are relevant and material. Mr. Roy does not explain how the records will be used to establish the City's liability or evaluate Officer Cass's credibility. See Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1026 (moving party must show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial).

With respect to categories 1 (statements by Officer Cass regarding collision) and 6 (documents regarding the collision), plaintiffs have not shown that the records sought are contained in Officer Cass's personnel file or files specified in Penal Code section 832.5. See Evid. Code § 1043(a). Plaintiffs may use the normal discovery methods to seek such information.

B. The hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel is ordered off calendar. No moving papers were filed. Counsel is admonished to read and comply with Local Rule 2.1.20 henceforward.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2992454 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KHURSHID VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] 37-2022-00010096-CU-PA-CTL _____________________________ *Named for an action brought by the longtime Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Peter Pitchess (1912-1999). As is discussed in the text, the process is now statutory in nature. Evid. Code § 1043.

**There were previously three matters scheduled, but the City apparently vacated its discovery motion.

See ROA 98-102, 107.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2992454