Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion)
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:
“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;
a description of the type of records or information sought; and
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.)
Useful Resources for Discovery of Police Officer Misconduct Records
Case Name: Francis v. City of Los Angeles
Case No.: BC526258
Motions: (1) Pitchess Motion; (2) Motion to Compel Depositions
Tentative Rulings: Pitchess motion denied; Deposition motion granted in part.
Plaintiff Jennifer Francis filed this employment action against Defendant City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff has two discovery motions on calendar.
PITCHESS MOTION
Plaintiff moves for discovery...
..peace officer’s personnel file is confidential and may not be disclosed except through discovery permitted by a “Pitchess motion” under Evid. Code §§1043-47. Among other things, a Pitchess motion must include a declaration showing good cause for disclosure, demonstrating a specific factual scenario or plausible factual foundation that the records are material to the subject matter of the pending...
Defendants’ Pitchess Motion is GRANTED. The Court shall hold an in camera hearing within 10 days of this order.
Evid. Code section 1043, subd. (a) requires that a party seeking disclosure of police officer “personnel records” file a particular motion, a Pitchess motion. (Cf. Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) “Personnel records” are defined as “primary records specific to each peac...
..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 infor...
DENISE BERTONE; Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES., et al.; Defendants.
Case No.: BC660736;
Consolidated with 18STCV04681
Hearing Date: August 30, 2019
RULING RE:
DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ Motion for AN ORDER TO DISCLOSE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION FILE WHERE PLAINTIFF IS THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION & COMPLAINTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF, SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE COD...
..stigation, Subject to a Protective Order is GRANTED in part as to Requests Nos. 2-4, and DENIED in part as to Request No. 1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production, Set Two is GRANTED as to the death investigation file and communicative emails pertaining to C. Hartman. The patient’s name and names of the patient’s parents is to be redacted.
Defendant’s Motion for...
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Metropolitan Transit System's Pitchess Motion Requesting Disclosure of Certain San Diego County Sheriff's Department Personnel Records is GRANTED. In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as "Pitchess motions" (after decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) through the enactment...
..il. As here pertinent, section 1043, subdivision (a) requires a written motion and notice to the governmental agency which has custody of the records sought, and subdivision (b) provides that such motion shall include, inter alia, "(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 mate...
Hearing Date: Monday, November 21, 2016
Calendar No: 10
Case Name: Cruse, et al. v. Swigger, et al.
Case No.: BC602211
Motion: Pitchess Motion
Moving Party: Plaintiffs Douglas Cruse and Iveta Cruse
Responding Party: Defendant Jacob Emory Swigger
Tentative Ruling: Pitchess motion is granted as to Category 2. As to the remaining categories, the Court will discuss at the hearing whether the part...
..occurring on 11/20/14. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) violation of the Bane Act, (2) assault, (3) battery, (4) false imprisonment, (5) negligence, (6) negligent hiring and training, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) loss of consortium. The 1st through 5th and 7th COAs are asserted by Douglas against all defendants; the 6th COA is asserted by Douglas against...
Tentative Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Redress in Pitchess Discovery
Initially, the court must address the question of what is pending in this department on March 20, 2014. The court finds that the pending issue is whether the court will reconsider or grant relief from its order on January 15, 2014, terminating proceedings following a reference from Department 54 concerning any potential effe...
..s such relief.
Having granted relief, the court further finds that the reference from Department 54 to this department was "for further consideration of [this Department's] prior order after granting Pitchess review in a related criminal proceeding." The criminal proceeding at issue is Case No. 12M07753, in which a Pitchess motion was filed, considered and records reviewed in this department. The...
17
18
19
0
23
25
26
-
FILEL Y FA.
Derek T. Anders “tate Bar No. 208141 EN 0 0
DEREK T. AND. —_, APC is
1901 First Avenue, s 16
n Diego, CA 92101 TOOFEBI4 , 08
(619) 237-0099
5 “UPERIOR COURT OF CAL ‘A
19) 237-0199 OF EDUNTY OF SACRANE,
Attorn. Plaintiff and Cross-. tant
MICHAL “LIE
5
% PERIOR COURT O: STATE OF CALIFU
yy COUNTY OF + \MENTO
MIC LILLIE, Case . 4-2016-00203643
Fi 4 2, PLAIN1. REPLY TO DEFE, T'S
& OPPOSIT: ‘9 MOTION TO Cu L;
v. % DECLARA?. OF DEREK T. AND. ”N |
CALIFORNI
nan eB w&
10
11
12
3
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
28
KLAUS J. KOL. N 146531)
KLAUS J. KOLb.
‘3620 Lincoln Way, 370
burn, CA 95603 een
shone: (530) 820 ‘DORSED
t ile: (530) 820-3:
kik et
Attot. + Petitioners and Cr. >fendants,
JOE an. “TTE HARDESTY
GLENN W. GRSON (SBN 1261. |
PETERSON “TSLAW GROUP, D. Ward, DEPUTY Tg
2267 Lava Ridg, st, Suite 210
Roseville, CA 95. &
Telephone: (916, ° @, 7222
csimile: (916) 7, 75
3 sys for Petitioner a1. ss-Defendant
Ri ”*D CHURCHES
SU
Superior Court of California, County of Merced
MINUTE ORDERS
People of the State of California, Plaintiff(s) 19CR 05558
vs. 1:30 PM Pre Trial Conference
a2 aw
10
ir
12
13
14
le
7
18
19
20
24
25
26
27
ye
XAVIER BECE: 7a: v 0
Attorney Genera. lifortia ~
MIGUEL A. NERI & 3 tts
Supervising Deputy . ey General “2020 FEB ~. Rs
USTIN J. CATTERMOL. ‘are t TORMI
uty Attomey Genera. SEO OOP NCR % -
“Sar No.'215363
“lay Stréet, 20th Floo.
Pa 70550
Oak, “A. 94612-0550
Telepi. *510).879-0091
Fax: (51 »-2270
E-mail: Ac 4 [email protected]
Attorneys for i 2 “ant
g
s @ “OR COURT OF Th ‘TE OF CALIFORN:
COUNTY OF SAC. SNTO
MICHAEL ‘E,
Cas
MENTS COURT
eT. BSNFURLER| OUI
350 University Ave., Suite >
Sacramento, CA 95°
TEL: 916.929."
FAX: 916°
~ nA we w&
10
il
12
13
16
7
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
Pursuant * Court’s ruling on tiffs Pitchess Mot. e Court conducted
camera review of L ant Trejo’s peace o1 »ersonnel records 0. ary 27, 2020, at 1:5
in Department 54 Sacramento County sior Court. Sacrame. >eriff Departmen:
Sc
Count,
* Branden Culp app. as the custodian of . ‘s for the Sheriff's L nent. Deputy
asel James Wood a
350 University Ave., Suite 2
Sacramento,CA 95°
TEL: 916.929."
FAX: 916.97
23
24
25
26
Pursuam = Court’s ruling on tiff's Pitchess Moti. + Court conducted .
camera review of L ant Trejo’s peace o1 yersonnel records o1 ary 27, 2020, at 1:5
in Department 54 - Sacramento County rior Court. Sacrame. seriff Department
Se * Branden Culp app. as the custodian of . *s for the Sheriff's L nent. Deputy
Coum, nsel James Wood ap, 4 on behalf of Serge. lp. After reviewing -v Trejo’s
peace offic ‘so
1 LAWREN CE M. GUSLANI (SBN 104488)
HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON
2 GUSLANI SIMONSON & CLAUSE LLP ELECTRONICALLY
3
999 Skyway Road, Suite 310 F I L E D
San Carlos, CA 94070
2iLED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA “Cia rere
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FEB 08 2020
APPELLATE DIVISION - ee HECOURT
Cher *
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) Appellate No.: APP-19-008589
Plaintiff/Respondent, Trial Case No.: 16004862
vs.
)
PATTI CURL, }
Defendant/A ppellant. )
)
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
ON APPEAL FROM THE,ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
‘SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
THE HONORABLE CAROL YAGGY
MARSANNE WEESE (SB
2iLED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA “Cia rere
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FEB 08 2020
APPELLATE DIVISION - ee HECOURT
Cher *
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) Appellate No.: APP-19-008589
Plaintiff/Respondent, Trial Case No.: 16004862
vs.
)
PATTI CURL, }
Defendant/A ppellant. )
)
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
ON APPEAL FROM THE,ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
‘SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
THE HONORABLE CAROL YAGGY
MARSANNE WEESE (SB
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
KATHARINE HOBIN-PORTER, ELECTRONICALLY
2 State Bar #173 180
Chief Labor Attorney F I L E D
JONATHAN YANK, State Bar #2 15495
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
2 KATHARINE HOBIN-PORTER, State Bar #173180 ELECTRONICALLY
Chief Labor Attorney F I L E D
3 JONATHAN YANK, State Bar #215495 Superior Court of California,
1 || Derek T. Anders “tate Bar No. 208141
DEREK T. ANDi N, APC
1901 First Avenue, = 16
mn Diego, CA 92101
(619) 237-0099
519) 237-0199
wn hk we
MICHA: LIE
a
a
a ‘
& PERIOR COURT OF
&
& countvors
MIC. LILLIE,
Fe i.
v.
CALIFORNIA L
CORRECTIONS A
OES 1-10, inclusive
TMENT OF
Attor * Plaintiff and Cross-. fant
"HABILITATION, «
Files Y FA
HLED
‘RSED
2020 JAN2 9-4 357
SUPERIOR COURT U FORMA
4 COUNTY OF SACK 9
STATE OF CALIFU
\MENTO
Case . 4-2016-00203643
NOTICE ‘OTION AND MO. BY
2008 JAH 27
& ADR AMENTO
DEPT. waaee a)
14
1S,
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Defendants « ITY OF SACR+ 'TO, SACRAME: COUNTY SHEk
\RTMENT, and M. ‘, TREJO (collectiv ‘Defendants”)—pro, he Court execute i
folle nrotective order, pu. to Cal. Evid. Code . 5(e).!
PROTECTIVE O;
The . has issued a ruling « intiff's Pitchess Mo. od scheduled an in ¢. - hearing?
for January 27, » to review docum. > the County's pos. 1 and to determine. vhich
documents will not . 2. duced to Plaintiff; ¢. ‘
2
23
24
25
26
Douglas E. We AN 182274
Warts Law OFF.
193 Blue Ravine k ‘te 100
Folsom, CA 95630
lephone: (916) 6, 8
simile: (916) 404-
‘ [email protected] "om
Attor ‘or Plaintiff KELLY Av
YERIOR COURT OF
a
e UNLIM:
KELLY Z. ALLEN, e,
Plaintiff,
v.
2
S.
x
CALIFORNIA ‘RTMENT OF
CORRECTION. » REHABILITATION;
and DOES 1 throw Mnclusive,
Defendai
COMES . PLAINTIFF KELLY
‘or an Order, pursua.
“alifornia Rules of C
TORNIA - COUNTY «
CRAMENTO
“URISDICTION
No, 34-2018-0023
PL.
ORD.
ON
wk ww HN
a
15
16
17
20
21
22
“23
24
26
a7
28
Defendants NTY OF SACR. ‘TO, SACRAME. COUNTY SHEb e
ARTMENT, and “L TREJO (collect: “Defendants”)—pro, ‘he Court execute .
fol: protective order, pe —»* to Cal. Evid. Code S(c).!
PROTECTIVEQ. = ~*
The has issued a ruling sintiff's Pitchess Mc nd scheduled an in ¢ + hearing?
for January 2’, 4, to review docun. ‘n the County’s pos n and to determine which
documents will noi ayivers to Plaintiff; ¢ ich documents will . duced to Plaintiff; (-
Oo em ND NH B®
10
ul
12
1B
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
2%
24
25
26
27
28
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
Curis A, KNUDSEN
Senior Assistant Attorney General
ANDREA R. AUSTIN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 173630
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-7863
Fax: (916) 324-5567
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
California Highway Patrol
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNI
SUPERIO. URI OF CALIFOF
COUNT. SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SC. =R COURTHOUSL
MINUTE ER
DATE: 7/2020 TIME: 09:0U M DEPT: 5.
JUDICIAL CER PRESIDING. stopher Krueger
CLERK: G.
REPORTER/-t
BAILIFF/COUR. TENDANT: N. Alvi, ays
ASE NO: 34-2019- 5376-CU-PO-GDS = INIT.DATE: 04/2 9
SE TITLE: Clevela. County of Sacre ‘o
& CATEGORY: Civi. limited
— on ay
EVENT =: Motion - Other - « % aw and Motion
APPEARANCE.
‘ure of Proceedin_ »tion for Disclosu. x, ‘aw Enforcemen. ards ("Pitchess")
1. TIVE RULING
a vA a» w&
10
1b
12
13
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
6
FILE, ¥ FA
MELANIE L. PRC >? (#228971)
Associate Chief Co. >
"ARTHA L. GOMEZ —°924) FILED/E. ~RSED
eTRIMENT OF FAIR N
OR _OYMENT
+ TOUSING JAN 10 2.
221 en Drive, Suite 100 LC
ElkG: "A. 95758 A Tumner
Telepho. 6) 478-7251 ix __Depty Genk
Facsimile: 382-5293
Attomeys for t as DFEH
(Fee Exempt, Go Ay § 6103.)
Le
%
IN THY & “RIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIr A
IN: 70R THE COUNT) 7ACRAMENTO
7
DEPA. TNT OF FAIREMPL NT ) CaseN '-202-0-
ribo PAs
MELANIE L. PR. R (4228971)
Associate Chief Cc
{ARTHA L. GOMEx 1024)
rior Staff Counsel Ten en/ca =
3 )RTMENT OF FAIk .OYMENT FILED/ENDO. |
“4OUSING fe
4 }} 221 sen Drive, Suite #10
EkG 7A. 95758 JAN 40 2020
5 }] Telephe 16) 478-7251
Facsimile. >) 382-5293 ge —_
6 |
Attomeys for . ner, DFEH
7 |] (Fee Exempt, Ge A. § 6103.)
eS >
IN TH. *% *ERIOR COURT O. * STATE OF CALL ‘A
9
IN "OR THE COUNT. SACRAMENTO
10
u1]} DEP. SNTOFFAIREMP: ‘ENT _+) Casei_—_—>.20- BD0DB Se
AND h NG, an agenc
a ann ee Ww
10
il
12
13
16
17
18
19
22
24
25
26
@ pa
‘Ste atten
Std. 113
Fibra r
MELANIE L. PRu R (#228971)
Associate Chief Co
*ARTHA L.GOMEz _*024) FILED, . YORSED
rior Staff Counsel
RTMENT OF FAIK “OYMENT
{OUSING JAN 10.
221 sen Drive, Suite 100 a
ElkG. 7A 95758 +A Turner
Telepho. 16) 478-7251 Berit ee
Facsimile. >) 382-5293
Attomeys for: ser, DFEH
(Fee Exempt, Gu 2, de, § 6103.)
%
IN TH. % ERIOR COURT O, ” STATE OF CALI 1A
IN. *OR THE COUNT. SACRAMENTO
DEPA “NT OF FAIR EMP.