Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01863, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01863    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On June 13, 2024, defendant City of Pasadena (“Defendant”) filed four motions for orders compelling plaintiff Jessica Austin (“Plaintiff”) to serve further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), and Form Interrogatories – General (Set One). The motion before the Court concerns Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“FROG”) Nos. 1.1 through 2.13, 6.1 through 6.7, 8.1 through 9.2, 10.2 through 12.6, 13.1 through 14.2, 17.1, and 50.1-50.6.

Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on November 4, 2024. Defendant filed a reply brief on November 8, 2024.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s definition of the term “INCIDENT”, which is defined twice. (Opp., p. 8.) Defendant’s definition of “INCIDENT” is clarified in its moving papers to mean, “Any alleged violation of Plaintiff's rights by or through any purported act of discipline, termination, or other adverse employment action, including any Internal Affairs investigation, reprimand, retaliation, and harassment, or violation of law committed by or attributable to the City of Pasadena.” (Casarrubias-Gonzalez Decl., Ex. F, Section 4(a)(2).) Given this clarification, Plaintiff’s objection on this ground is OVERRULED.

However, Plaintiff also objects to the Form Interrogatories on the grounds that Defendant failed to first file a Pitchess motion pursuant to Penal Code § 832.7 and Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1045. Evidence Code §§ 1043 and 1045 protect Plaintiff from disclosing “peace or custodial officer personnel records [defined in Penal Code section 832.8] or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records.” (Evid. Code, § 1043.) The Court agrees that to the extent Defendant’s requests seek information contained within Plaintiff’s personnel records – as defined in the Penal Code – Plaintiff’s objections are sustained. Moreover, based on Defendant’s definition of “INCIDENT”, the information sought by many of these form interrogatories are therefore protected. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED only as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10, which seek information not created as part of Plaintiff’s personnel file. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Last, Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Form Interrogatory Nos. 50.1-50.6 on the grounds that they are only relevant to causes of action based on a breach of contract and thus are irrelevant in the context of public employment. (Opp., p. 8.) The Court disagrees that these interrogatories are only relevant to actions involving breach of contract claims. Nevertheless, because any employment agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant necessarily includes information found in Plaintiff’s personnel file, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection based on the Pitchess statutes and Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to FROG Nos. 50.1-50.6.

As for sanctions, Plaintiff explains that in November 2024, after the Court ruled on Defendant’s previous three motions to compel further responses, which raised similar issues regarding the Pitchess statutes, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer and enter into a protective order. (Opp., p. 3; Ex. 6.) Defense counsel stated that Defendant would consider withdrawing this motion if Plaintiff proposed a protective order, ignoring the fact that Plaintiff sent such a proposed order on June 11, 2024, and that Defendant rejected it on June 24, 2024. (Ibid.)  

Notably, Defendant makes no mention of this exchange in its reply brief, other than to say that “the parties were unable to come to agreement.” (Reply Taniguchi Decl., ¶ 2.) Defense counsel states that Defendant is preparing a Pitchess motion and “intends to file [it] in due course.”

Given Defendant’s refusal to withdraw this motion despite acknowledging the necessity of the Pitchess procedure, as well as Plaintiff’s refusal to supplement responses to provide clearly unprotected information, the Court finds that both parties acted with substantial justification in making and opposing this motion. Accordingly, no sanctions are imposed.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 18th day of November, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.