Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV16947, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16947    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

          On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs Claudia Jimenez and Dolisa Perez brought this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Jamie Garcia Valenzuela and Celia Ornelas. Plaintiffs allege that on June 16, 2019, a 2016 Hyundai Elantra driven by Valenzuela struck a light pole on the sidewalk, which fell on Plaintiffs’ vehicle and the top of Perez’s head.

          Plaintiff Perez is a former agent with the California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (“ABC”). On November 10, 2022, Defendant Valenzuela filed a motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records. On November 16, 2022, Valenzuela filed a first amended version of his motion. On December 28, 2022, Valenzuela filed a notice of non-opposition.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “[T]he personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. (Penal Code § 832.7(a).)

“In 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…In a civil action, the written notice shall be given at the times prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Evid. Code § 1043(a).)

“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.

(3) Affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure 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(b).)

If the Court finds "good cause" under Section 1043(b). section 1045 then requires the Court to examine the information in chambers in conformity with Evidence section 915, which requires the examination to be out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present. ¿Section 1045 requires the Court to exclude from disclosure several enumerated categories of information, including: complaints more than five years old, the "conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint”, and facts which are "so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit."

III.      DISCUSSION

Valenzuela meets the requirements of Evidence Code section 1043(a). Valenzuela filed a noticed motion pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. (See Evid. Code § 1043(a).) Valenzuela’s first amended motion includes proof of service which indicates the motion was served on Plaintiffs on November 16, 2022.

Valenzuela also meets the requirements of Evidence Code section 1043(b). First, Valenzuela identifies this as the proceeding in which the discovery is sought, identifies himself as the party seeking discovery, identifies Dolisa Perez as the peace officer whose records are sought, identifies ABC and CalPERS as the governmental agencies that have control and custody of the records, and indicates that the motion will be heard on January 5, 2023, at Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (See Evid. Code § 1043(b)(1).)

Second, Valenzuela describes the type of records sought as personnel records. (See Evid. Code § 1043(b)(2).)  Penal Code section 832.8(a) defines “personnel records” to mean, “any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following:

(1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information.

(2) Medical history.

(3) Election of employee benefits.

(4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline…”

Here, Valenzuela specifically seeks the following categories of information: (1) Any and all personnel records related to Perez's health, injuries, and treatment after the subject incident—including medical providers names and contact information as well as records that relate to Perez’s bodily injury claim; (2) any and all personnel records related to Perez’s pre-existing medical issues such as obesity, depression, or anxiety—including evaluations done by ABC or CALPERS prior to the subject incident and records from medical providers that address evaluations or treatment received by Perez prior to the subject incident; and (3) any and all personnel records related to Perez’s disability claim—including evaluations and communications by ABC and CALPERS to Perez regarding Perez's inability to remain employed with ABC and all documents reflecting Perez’s retirement benefits status and wage amount at the time of termination.

Pursuant to Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, the specific information Valenzuela seeks is subject to a discovery motion made under Evidence Code section 1043 because the information is part of Perez’s personal information, medical history, employee benefits, and/or advancement within ABC. (See Penal Code section 832.8(a)(1-4).) Furthermore, the information Valenzuela seeks is highly relevant to this action because Perez is claiming that she sustained injuries because of Valenzuela’s negligence, which forced her to retire early from ABC.

Third, Valenzuela offers an affidavit showing good cause for the discovery sought and showing that ABC likely has access to Perez’s records or information from her records. (See Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3).) As noted, supra, the information Valenzuela seeks is highly relevant to this action because Perez is claiming that she sustained injuries because of Valenzuela’s negligence, which forced her to retire early from ABC. Valenzuela offers a declaration from counsel, who lays foundation for excerpts from Perez’s deposition where Perez testifies that CalPERS evaluated her injuries, that ABC would not allow her to return to work with her injuries, and that she was forced into early retirement as a result. (Nelson Decl., ¶¶ 4-12, Exs. 2-10.) In addition, the declaration from Valenzuela’s counsel includes a memo from ABC instructing Valenzuela to file this Pitchess motion to gain access to Perez’s records. (Id., ¶ 13, Ex. 11.)

Valenzuela has met each of the requirements of Evidence Code section 1043. Valenzuela shows good cause for the discovery sought, and Valenzuela shows that it is likely ABC has access to the discovery. Furthermore, no party opposes the motion. Accordingly, Valenzuela’s motion is granted.

When a trial court concludes that a party’s Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer's personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself.  (People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 722.)  ¿A law enforcement officer's personnel record will commonly contain many documents that would, in the normal case, be irrelevant to a Pitchess motion.  (Ibid.)   Documents clearly irrelevant to a Pitchess request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review. ¿But if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court.¿ (Ibid.) ¿Such practice is consistent with the premise of Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 that the locus of decision-making is to be the trial court.  (Ibid.)  The custodian of the records can assist the trial court by focusing the court's attention on what is relevant.¿ (Ibid.)¿ The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents, or category of documents, not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant's Pitchess motion.  (Ibid.) 

IV.      CONCLUSION

          Defendant Jamie Valenzuela’s motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is GRANTED.  ABC is ordered to produce the following records within 30 days for review by the court in chambers:

(1) Any and all personnel records related to Perez's health, injuries, and treatment after the subject incident—including medical providers names and contact information as well as records that relate to Perez’s bodily injury claim;

(2) any and all personnel records related to Perez’s pre-existing medical issues such as obesity, depression, or anxiety—including evaluations done by ABC or CALPERS prior to the subject incident and records from medical providers that address evaluations or treatment received by Perez prior to the subject incident; and

(3) any and all personnel records related to Perez’s disability claim—including evaluations and communications by ABC and CALPERS to Perez regarding Perez's inability to remain employed with ABC and all documents reflecting Perez’s retirement benefits status and wage amount at the time of termination.

The Court sets a hearing on January 30, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. for an in-camera review of these documents. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.