In Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1975), the court first used what is commonly referred to today as a Pitchess Motion. The California Legislature codified “Pitchess motions” in 1978 through amendments and additions to the Penal Code, specifically sections 832.7 and 832.83 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.4. A Pitchess Motion is required when “discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Penal Code § 832.5 or information from those records.” (Evid. Code § 1043(a).)

An initial question under Pitchess is whether the moving party has shown that the requested review would be material to the issues in the case. (Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1027 (2005).)

Section 1043(b) of the evidence code requires that a Pitchess motion must include:

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 which 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; and
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).)

To show good cause, which is “a relatively low threshold for discovery,” (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, 49 Cal.3d 74, 83 (1989).), the defendant must “establish not only a logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge, but also to articulate how the discovery being sought would support such a defense or how it would impeach the officer’s version of events.” (Warrick, 35 Cal.4th at 1021.) But “the information sought must, however, be ‘requested with adequate specificity to preclude the possibility that defendant is engaging in a ‘fishing expedition.’” (City of Santa Cruz, 49 Cal.3d at 85.)

Plaintiffs may be “entitled to the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the complainants and witnesses.” (Warrick, 35 Cal.4th at 1019.)

“When a trial court concludes a defendant’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.” (City of Santa Cruz, 49 Cal.3d at p. 84.) A court reporter should be present to document the custodian's statements, as well as any questions the trial court may wish to ask the custodian regarding the completeness of the record. (People v. Jackson, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1221, fn. 10.)