Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) in SOLIZ VS LOMBARDI| Trellis.Law

On March 24, 2021 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Soliz, Joe, and Bradley Quintana, California Highway Patrol, Christina Rini, Hall Ambulance, Lombardi, Bryan D., Officer Bryan D. Lombardi, for 23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited in the District Court of Kern County.

Preview
1 MICHAEL J. CURLS (SBN 159651)
NICHELLE D. JORDAN (SBN 186308)
2 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. CURLS
4340 Leimert Blvd., Suite 200
3 Los Angeles, CA 90008
Telephone: (323) 293-2314
4 Facsimile: (323) 293-2350
Email: nichelle@mjclawoffice.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOE SOLIZ
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN, METROPOLITAN DIVISION
8

9
JOE SOLIZ ) Case No.: BCV-21-100676
10 ) [Assigned for all Purposes to the Hon. Thomas
Plaintiff, ) S. Clark, Judge presiding in Dept. 17]
11 )
vs. )
12 ) PLAINTIFF JOE SOLIZ’ NOTICE OF
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, ) MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
13 OFFICER BRYAN D. LOMBARDI, HALL ) PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC CALIFORNIA
AMBULANCE, BRADLEY QUINTANA, ) HIGHWAY PATROL PERSONNEL
14 ) RECORDS (“PITCHESS MOTION”);
CHRISTINA RINI, and DOES 1 THROUGH ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
15
25, INCLUSIVE, ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
)
16 Defendants )
) Date: December 16, 2022
17 ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
) Dept. 17
18
)
)
19
)
)
20
)

22
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS

23
OF RECORD:

24
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at 8:30 a.m. on December 16, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.,

25
or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Dept. 17 of this court, located at 1415

26
Truxton Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93301, Plaintiff JOE SOLIZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), will move

27
-1-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 this Court for an order compelling defendant CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, to furnish
2 the below-described personnel records regarding the following officers:
3 1. Bryan D. Lombardi;
4 2. Brandon Chitty,
5 3. Daniel Zimms; and
6 4. Any and all other officers who were present at the scene of the arrest of Plaintiff JOE
7 SOLIZ on June 16, 2020 on Rosamond Blvd., west of 25th Street West in the City of
8 Rosamond; witnessed any incident(s) which led to the termination of Plaintiff JOE
9 SOLIZ by the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;
10 Requested personnel records include, but not limited to, the following:
11
1. All training files, including, but not limited to, Emergency Medical Responding
12
training and procedures.
13
2. All performance reviews and employee advancement.
14
3. All discipline, complaints and related investigations (includes supervisor notes,
15
informal reprimands and formal documents).
16
4. All files which relate to prior complaints and claims and matters involving racial
17
profiling and discrimination.
18
5. All evidence relating to training failures as they relate to police procedures,
19
interviewing techniques, and constitutional rights.
20
6. All investigation (internal or external) or inquiries by the hiring department, the
21
Justice Department, District Attorney’s office, the office of the Attorney General
22
or other investigating agency regarding potential misconduct.
23
7. All records and documents regarding untruthfulness, dishonesty, evidence,
24
tampering, witness manipulation or other wrongdoing.
25
8. All names, addresses, telephone numbers of all persons who filed complaints
26
with, or who were interviewed by investigators or other personnel on behalf of
27
defendants, concerning the above-named officers, related to acts of moral
-2-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 turpitude, dishonesty, lack of credibility, and failure to follow California Highway
2 Patrol rules and policies related to any due process protected by the U.S.
3 Constitution as well as the dates of filing of such complaints. This includes:
4 a. Verbatim copies of all statements, written or oral, made by persons
5 filing complaints or interviewed during investigations of such
6 complaints.
7 b. Copies of all investigative reports.
8 c. All findings, reports, tapes, recordings, opinions and transcripts of
9 disciplinary actions or proceedings commenced or taken relating to
10 acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, lack of credibility, and failure to
11 follow police department policies related to any due process protected
12 by the U.S. Constitution.
13 Said motion will be made pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531;
14
Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1011, and Evidence Code §§ 1043 and 1045.
15
This motion includes a request for copying, sealing and preserving all files subject to
16
review or potentially subject to review by the trial court so that a meaningful record for appellate
17
review can be maintained.
18
Said motion is also based on this notice and exhibits, the points and authorities set forth
19

20 below, the attached declaration of Nichelle D. Jordan, and the complete files and records in this

21 action.

23 DATED: November 21, 2022 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. CURLS
24

25 /s/ Nichelle D. Jordan
By:
26 Nichelle D. Jordan, Attorneys for
27 Plaintiff JOE SOLIZ
-3-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
4
This action concerns an incident which commenced on or about June 16, 2020, in
5
Rosamond, California. Officer Lombardi and other CHP Officers were dispatched to a
6
motorcycle collision on Rosamond Blvd., west of 25th Street West in the City of Rosamond. The
7
driver of the motorcycle was Plaintiff, Joe Soliz. (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Soliz”)
8
During the course of the incident, Officer Lombardi, CHP Officer Brandon Chitty and
9
CHP Officer Daniel Zimms opined that Mr. Soliz was under the influence of alcohol and advised
10
Mr. Soliz that he was under arrest. Officer Lombardi and the other CHP Officers thereafter
11
handcuffed Mr. Soliz.
12
While at the scene of the collision, Mr. Soliz complained that he was hurting and in need
13
of medical attention. At the accident scene, Officer Lombardi made it clear that he had no regard
14
for Mr. Soliz’ complaints of pain. Please refer to Exhibit “A” to the CONFIDENTIAL FILED
15
UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER Declaration of Nichelle D. Jordan in
16
support of Plaintiff Joe Soliz’ Motion to Compel Production of Specific California Highway
17
Patrol Personnel Records, a true and correct copy of the transcript of Officer Lombardi’s Mobile
18
Video/Audio Recording System (“MVARS”).
19
Defendant Hall Ambulance was dispatched to the scene of the collision. The Hall
20
Ambulance personnel dispatched to the scene opined that Mr. Soliz sustained traumatic injuries
21
in the crash. In addition, Mr. Soliz complained that he was hurting and needed medical attention.
22
Despite clear indications that Mr. Soliz needed immediate medical care, Mr. Soliz was not
23
afforded a thorough and complete medical examination and was not transported by Hall
24
Ambulance to the nearest hospital emergency room or trauma center.
25
Although Mr. Soliz complained that he was hurting and in need of help, the handcuffed
26
Mr. Soliz was released to the custody of Officer Lombardi and the other CHP Officers. Officer
27
-1-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 Lombardi and the other CHP Officers forcibly placed Mr. Soliz into the back of his patrol car
2 and transported Mr. Soliz away from the scene of the collision to proceed to arrest and book Mr.
3 Soliz.
4 In lieu of obtaining immediate medical care for Mr. Soliz, Officer Lombardi and Officer
5 Chitty made a second traffic stop while transporting the injured Mr. Soliz in Officer Lombardi’s
6 patrol car. Mr. Soliz remained in the patrol car for the duration of this unrelated subsequent stop.
7 While in the patrol car, Mr. Soliz continued to plea for medical help.
8 When Officer Lombardi eventually transported Mr. Soliz to Tehachapi Hospital to obtain
9 a blood test to facilitate his arrest, Mr. Soliz was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with
10 contusions, lacerations, several broken ribs and a punctured lung. Mr. Soliz’ medical condition
11 was worsened by Officer Lombardi’s failure to promptly obtain medical treatment for Mr. Soliz.
12 Mr. Soliz sustained injuries as a result of the intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct of the
13 Defendants and each of them.
14 As a result of the wrongful conduct of, and departure from California Highway Patrol
15 policies and procedures by Officer Lombardi and the other Officers, Plaintiff suffered harm; and
16 the injuries that he sustained in the crash were exacerbated.
17 II.
18 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR A PITCHESS MOTION
19 A motion to obtain an officer's personnel file is known as a Pitchess Motion. See Pitchess
20 v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531. "The Pitchess procedure applies in both criminal and
21 civil cases Rosales v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 419, 427, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 144
22 ("the whole purpose behind the Penal and Evidence Code provisions is to provide disclosure in a
23 civil or criminal proceedings where the moving party shows the information sought is material to
24 the subject matter involved in the pending litigation".) Fletcher v. Superior Court (2002) 100
25 Cal. App. 4th 386, 390.
26 In order to obtain this discovery the party must describe the information sought and show
27 good cause for its disclosure. Upon finding good cause, the Court must screen the records in
-2-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 camera for relevant documents. California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.
2 App. 4th 1010, 1019-20.
3 By way of this motion and based on the information provided herein, Plaintiff has
4 complied with California Evidence Code §§ 1043-1047, which sets forth the requirements for
5 Pitchess Motions and the discovery which a party seeks through such a procedure. Those
6 requirements and plaintiff's responses to those requirements are as follows:
7 1) Identification of the proceedings in which discovery is sought - (Complaint entitled
8 Soliz v. California Highway Patrol, Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-21-100676);
9 2) Identification of the party seeking disclosure - (Plaintiff Joe Soliz);
10 3) Identification of the peace officer(s) whose records are sought - (Officer Bryan D.
11 Lombardi, Officer Brandon Chitty, Officer Daniel Zimms, and other California Highway Patrol
12 Officers present at the June 16, 2020 arrest of Plaintiff);
13 4) Identification of the government agencies which have custody of, or control over, the
14 records sought - (California Highway Patrol and/or Custodian of Records for California Highway
15 Patrol);
16 5) Identification of the time and place at which the motion for discovery shall be heard -
17 (December 16, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17 of the Kern County Superior Court);
18 6) Description of the type of records or information sought - (personnel files and internal
19 affairs files relating to any claim of racial discrimination, racial harassment, racial profiling,
20 improper detention, use of excess force made in the five year period proceeding June 16, 2020,
21 audio and video tapes referencing plaintiff or involving plaintiff, Any audio or video recorded
22 statements made by defendants, referring to or referencing the plaintiff, to any employee or agent
23 of the CHP; Any reports made or conclusions reached by any officer, or administrator, of the
24 CHP referring to or referencing the plaintiff; and
25 7) Affidavit showing good cause for the discovery sought, setting forth materiality
26 thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief
27
-3-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 that such governmental agencies identified have such records or information from such records –
2 ( Declaration of Nichelle D. Jordan).
3 As such, this motion complies with all requirements for an order to release peace officer
4 files relevant to this litigation.
5 III.
6 GOOD CAUSE FOR DISCLOSURE EXISTS IN THE PRESENT CASE
7 California Evidence Code § 1043 requires the party moving for discovery of police
8 personnel files to submit an affidavit showing "good cause" for discovery, setting forth the
9 materiality of the requested documents, and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental
10 agency actually possesses them. Good cause exists from a plausible factual scenario which
11 establishes a plausible factual foundation for the document's relevance to the case involving
12 officer misconduct. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 74, 85-86. The
13 state standard is "both a broader and lower threshold for disclosure" than the Brady standard.
14 City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 1, 14. "The two-part showing of good
15 cause is a 'relatively low threshold for discovery." Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal. 4th
16 1011, 1016; citing City of Santa Cruz, supra. "We hold that to obtain in-chambers review a
17 [party] need only demonstrate that the scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might
18 have occurred." Warrick v. Superior Court, supra.
19 Warrick describes the analysis of a Pitchess motion based upon a declaration by counsel
20 combined with a police report as follows: ...the trial court hearing a Pitchess motion will have
21 before it defense counsel's affidavit, and in addition a police report, witness statements, or other
22 pertinent documents. The court then determines whether [party's] averments viewed in
23 conjunction with the police reports, and any other documents suffice to establish a plausible
24 factual foundation for the alleged officer misconduct and to articulate a valid theory as to how
25 the information sought might be admissible at trial. Although a Pitchess motion is obviously
26 strengthened by a witness account corroborating the occurrence of officer misconduct, such
27 corroboration is not required. What the defendant must present is a specific factual scenario of
-4-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 officer misconduct that is plausible when read in light of the pertinent documents. People v. Hill,
2 (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1089; citing Warrick, supra. (internal quotations omitted).
3 When seeking discovery under § 1043(b)(3) of information in the personnel files of
4 police officers, "a [plaintiff] must present a plausible scenario of officer misconduct, one that
5 might, or could, have occurred; such a scenario presents an assertion of specific police
6 misconduct that is both internally consistent and supports the [allegations] in the complaint, and
7 a [plaintiff] must also show how the information sought could lead to, or be, evidence potentially
8 admissible at trial." Warrick v. Superior Court, supra. California Evidence Code § 1045 does not
9 require personal knowledge of material facts; affidavits based on information and belief are
10 sufficient City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, supra.
11 In a civil case, once a plaintiff demonstrates that the officers' conduct is plausibly related
12 to violations of the plaintiff's civil rights, or damages suffered by the plaintiff, the burden is met
13 and the documents should be produced. Id.
14 In this case, Plaintiff provides the State of California Driving Under the Influence Report
15 and Hall Ambulance Incident Reports that support the request for production of the internal
16 affairs files. In particular, it has been acknowledged that Plaintiff sustained traumatic injuries in a
17 motorcycle collision. Defendants contend that Plaintiff refused medical treatment while Plaintiff
18 contends that his pleas for assistance were ignored. Plaintiff further contends that the departure
19 from procedure exacerbated Plaintiff’s injuries sustained in the crash. Plaintiff is informed that
20 California Highway Patrol Officers undergo emergency medical response training. Thus any
21 information about Officer Lombardi and his fellow officers’ training and/or prior departures
22 therefrom is relevant to the facts of this case.
23 Good cause further exists for disclosure of the Internal Affairs and Personnel files of
24 Officer Lombardi and the other officers at the scene since their previous actions of police
25 misconduct and/or their initial statements about this incident would tend to prove whether their
26 unsworn statements made in their police reports are factually accurate, or whether they are
27 simply meant to cover-up their unlawful actions, as alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged that
-5-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 the officers interfered with ability to obtain a complete medical examination and treatment by
2 Hall Ambulance. In addition, Plaintiff has alleged that Officer Lombardi harassed Plaintiff by
3 forcibly placing the injured Plaintiff in the patrol car and making a subsequent traffic stop in
4 route to the jail. Plaintiff also contends that Officer Lombardi intentionally ignored Plaintiff’s
5 pleas for medical attention. For all these reasons, as alleged by Plaintiff, good cause is met
6 IV.
7 THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ARE MATERIAL
8 Material evidence "includ[es] evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay
9 declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of
10 consequence to the determination of the action." Cal Evid. Code § 210. "It is undisputed that
11 materials that 'may be used to impeach a witness' fall within the class of information subject to
12 Brady [and Pitchess] because impeachment information affects the fairness of trial." Los Angeles
13 v. Superior Court, supra (citing Strickler v. Greene 527 U.S. 263, 282, fn. 21 (1999); see United
14 States v. Ruiz 536 U.S. 622 (2002)) "Relevant information under section 1045 is not limited to
15 facts that may be admissible at trial, but may include facts that could lead to discovery of
16 admissible evidence." People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 658, 681-82.
17 The basic rule in looking at the materiality of information that should be released is if the
18 evidence will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial the evidence can be said to
19 be "material." Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 1079. Where personnel files
20 contain detail that is material, related to ultimate issues and evidentiary disputes in a particular
21 case, then that evidence should be disclosed in detail.
22 In Haggerty v. Superior Court, supra a jail inmate brought suit against a deputy sheriff,
23 claiming the deputy violated his civil rights by using excessive force against him. The inmate
24 filed a motion for discovery of documents contained in the deputy's personnel file, including the
25 entire internal affairs investigation file of the incident between the deputy and the inmate. The
26 department argued that the disclosure would have a chilling effect on investigations of citizen
27 complaints. The trial court refused to limit the discovery to names, addresses and telephone
-6-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 numbers of the witnesses identified in the internal affairs report, because the facts gleaned from
2 the internal affairs investigation were directly relevant to the matters at issue in the lawsuit
3 When a party alleges that officers lied in a police report and thereafter make a showing of
4 good cause for discovery of officers' personnel files, the moving party is entitled to have the
5 Court grant the discovery motion seeking records of all complaints against arresting officers for
6 lack of truthfulness. Brant v. Superior Court (2nd App. Dist. 2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 100.
7 Here, Plaintiff seeks information regarding the character, habits, customs and credibility
8 of the involved officers in this case. Such information is material as it will reflect on the
9 character, habit, custom of the testifying officers, and will tend to prove how they behaved on the
10 day of Plaintiff's arrest Also, production of reports that demonstrate a bias on the part of the
11 officer, or provide a motive or explanation for the officer engaging in any prohibited or illegal
12 conduct may affect the officer's credibility and are discoverable.
13 V.
14 PLAINTIFF HAS CLAIMED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE A PATTERN AND
15 PRACTICE OF DEPARTING FROM TRAINING, POLICY AND PROCEDURES
16 Plaintiff's claims are that both the CHP and the individual defendants engaged in a
17 pattern and practice of departing from their training and established policies and procedures
18 when responding to the medical needs of suspects in their custody. As such, any prior departures
19 is both relevant and material to the claim that defendants and their superiors condoned the
20 behavior and have acted with malice and oppression. “… documentation of past officer
21 misconduct which is similar to the misconduct alleged by defendant [or civil rights plaintiff] in
22 the pending litigation is relevant and therefore subject to discovery.” (See People v. Gill (1997)
23 60 Cal.App.4th 743, 749, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 369; People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410,
24 417, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 875. This is because "evidence of habit or custom [is] admissible to show
25 that a person acted in conformity with that habit or custom on a given occasion." People v.
26 Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 681. Similarly, "evidence of reputation, opinion, and specific
27 instances of conduct is admissible to show, inter alia, motive, intent, or plan." Ibid. Thus, in
-7-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 People v. Memro, the court concluded that, "evidence that the interrogating officers had a custom
2 or habit of obtaining confessions by violence, force, threat, or unlawful aggressive behavior
3 would have been admissible on the issue of whether the confession had been coerced. California
4 Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 1010, 1021.
5 Appellate courts have concluded that parties are entitled to discover prior complaints of
6 false police reports to support their claims. “[T]he police report indicated that [defendant] drove
7 in a dangerous manner; however, [defendant's] counsel's declaration asserted that defendant did
8 not drive in the manner suggested in the report, which led to a reasonable inference that the
9 officer may not have been truthful. Therefore, it becomes relevant whether the officers have been
10 accused of falsifying reports in the past.” People v. Hustead, supra, 74 Cal. App. 4th at p. 418.
11 Since plaintiff has averred that the defendants' past violations are a part of a wider
12 practice of officer misconduct, the inclusion of documents relating to past violations of these
13 officers is necessary and material. Showing past violations has both a logical nexus with the
14 violations of Plaintiff’s rights and is integral to demonstrating plan, motive and intent. Disclosure
15 of this information would tend to prove liability on behalf of the California Highway Patrol. The
16 requested information also goes to custom habit, intent, plan, immunities and damages. The
17 Court should grant the in camera review and disclose the documents that are requested.
18 VI.
19 EVIDENCE PROVIDING A MOTIVE FOR DISCLOSING A BIAS. THAT WILL
20 EXPLAIN WHY AN OFFICER WOULD ENGAGE IN PROHIBITED OR ILLEGAL
21 CONDUCT IS DISCOVERABLE
22 The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by any party, including the
23 party calling him. Cal Evid. Code § 785. The Court in People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 284
24 court stated, "it is undeniable that a witness' moral depravity of any kind has 'some tendency in
25 reason' [citation omitted] to shake one's confidence in his honesty." Id. at 295, citing People v.
26 Castro (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 301, 315.
27
-8-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 Ultimately, the court held that prior conduct may be admissible to impeach a witness so
2 long as that conduct shows dishonesty or "moral turpitude" relevant to impeachment. Id. at 295.
3 People v. Wheeler, supra.
4 In People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, the Supreme Court explained that the statutes
5 governing discovery motions "do not limit discovery of such records to cases involving
6 altercation between police officers and arrestees, the context in which Pitchess arose." Memro,
7 supra. 38 Cal.3d at p.679) Indeed, the court also noted that "one legitimate goal of discovery is
8 to obtain information 'for possible use to impeach or cross examine an adverse witness....' Foster
9 v. Superior Court (1980)107 Cal.App.3d 218,227" Memro, supra. at p.677 Likewise, other
10 cases have held that Pitchess motions are proper for issues relating to credibility. See Larry E. V.
11 Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 25, (motion seeking discovery of complaints for
12 "aggressive behavior, violence or excessive force, improper police tactics, dishonesty and racial
13 or class prejudice" sufficient to require in camera review when the minor alleged that he did not
14 use force against the officers, that the officers lied about his actions and planted evidence, and
15 the information was relevant to show officers had a motive to lie and could show potential bias
16 which would affect the officers credibility as witnesses); Pierre C. v. Superior Court (1984) 159
17 Cal.App.3d 1120,1122 discovery motion for records pertaining to "'racial prejudice, false arrest,
18 illegal search and seizure, the fabrication of charges and/or evidence, dishonesty and improper
19 tactics...."' sufficient, because the minor alleged a defense of false arrest and alleged that a
20 substantial issue at trial "would be the character, habits, customs and credibility of the officers.".
21 People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 410, 417
22 Indeed, discovery of any bias of the officers, or evidence of any motive to lie by these
23 officers are compelled by the United States Constitution. Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308.
24 Closer to home, California courts have consistently stated how critical credibility evidence and
25 particularly evidence of bias is: “This is not to say the Constitution completely takes away the
26 trial court's power to limit and control inquiry into the issue of a witness' racial bias....[A] certain
27 threshold level of cross-examination is constitutionally required, and in such cases the discretion
-9-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 of the trial judge is obviously circumscribed.” In Re Anthony P. (1985)167 Cal. App. 3d
2 502,513.
3 If the court, in the in camera review, uncovers evidence of a bias on behalf of the officer,
4 discovery must be compelled. Here, Plaintiff seeks any evidence of complaints of excessive
5 force, aggressive conduct, unnecessary violence, unnecessary force, false arrest, false statements
6 in reports, false claims of probable cause, or any other evidence of, or complaints of, dishonesty
7 by the defendants. Such conduct would shake the listener's confidence in their testimony, and is
8 clearly relevant for impeachment purposes, either as directly relevant to credibility, or as
9 evidence of possible bias or motivation for engaging in the conduct complained about (i.e.
10 "moral laxity"). Wheeler, supra at 292. Plaintiff should be provided with the evidence and given
11 an opportunity to investigate; then Plaintiff may present his finding to the trial court for rulings
12 on admissibility pursuant to Evidence Code § 352 subject to the strong bias in favor of the
13 relevance and admissibility of such evidence.
14 Evidence of character, habit or custom is admissible to prove conduct on a specified
15 occasion in conformity with the specified character habit or custom. Cal. Evid. Code § 1105.
16 Discovery of information in officers' personnel files may lead to evidence of such character,
17 habit or custom. "Habit" or "custom" can be established by evidence of repeated instances of
18 similar conduct People v. Gill (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 743.
19 VII.
20 THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT BY DISCLOSURE OF THE
21 INFORMATION
22 In bringing this motion, Plaintiff recognizes that Pitchess procedure exists to balance the
23 officer's privacy rights against the interests of plaintiff. People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1216,
24 1227. Additionally, plaintiff is also aware that parties are required to follow the Pitchess
25 procedure to obtain full and complete responses to discovery requests where necessary
26 information comes from peace officer personnel records where the officer is not the subject of an
27 investigation. People v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 397, 402. When a party makes a
-10-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 request for the production of documents, the responding party must make a full search and
2 identify any documents that are privileged or that will not be produced. The defendants would
3 have to identify the privileged document.
4 Plaintiff has a right to gather information to impeach defendant and to demonstrate bias.
5 Should the court determine that plaintiff is not entitled to the requested information, the only fair
6 and just course would be to prohibit defendant from raising his experience and background in his
7 attempt to justify his actions. Defendant may argue that Pitchess is limited solely to issues of
8 officer violence. Such is not the case. In People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 658, the California
9 Supreme Court explained that the statutes governing discovery motions "do not limit discovery
10 of such records to cases involving altercations between police officers and arrestees, the context
11 in which Pitchess arose." Id. The court noted that "one legitimate goal of discovery is to obtain
12 information "for possible use to impeach of cross-examine an adverse witness..." Id. citing
13 Foster v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 218. [*29]
14 A material and substantial issue in this trial will be the character, habits, customs, and
15 credibility of the officer involved. To make this determination, as in the above cases, in camera
16 review and discovery of relevant materials is required.
17 VIII.
18 CONCLUSION
19 For all the reasons stated, and in the interests of justice, the instant motion should be
20 granted and Plaintiff should be allowed to discover the contents of the personnel files of Officer
21 Lombardi, Officer Chitty, Officer Zimms and any other officers present during the June 16, 2020
22 arrest of Plaintiff Joe Soliz.
23 DATED: November 21, 2022 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. CURLS
24

25 /s/ Nichelle D. Jordan
By:
26 Nichelle D. Jordan, Attorneys for
27
Plaintiff JOE SOLIZ
-11-
28 PITCHESS MOTION
1 Proof of Service
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I reside in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party
3
to the within action; my business address is 4340 Leimert Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90008.
4
On November 21, 2022, I served the forgoing documents described as PLAINTIFF JOE
5 SOLIZ’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL PERSONNEL RECORDS (“PITCHESS MOTION”);
6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested
parties in this action.
7
By placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
8

9 Rob Bonta Deborah Tropp
Attorney General of California Carly English
10 Benjamin Barnouw McNeil Tropp & Braun LLP
Supervising Deputy Attorney General 2 Park Plaza, Suite 620
11 Molly S. Murphy Irvine, CA 92614
Deputy Attorney General dtropp@mtbattorneys.com
12
300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702 cenglish@mtbattorneys.com
13
Los Angeles, CA 90013 bbiggins@mtbattorneys.com
Molly.Murphy@doj.gov
14
By Mail as follows: I am readily familiar with the firm’s business practices for collection and
15 processing for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice it would be deposited
with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage
16 thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was sealed and placed for collection and
mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
17
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more
18
than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit.

19
X By Email: Pursuant to California Judicial Council Emergency Local Rule Number 12. I
20 confirmed with counsel the accurate service address and served the documents to the email addresses
listed above.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is
22
true and correct.
23
Executed on November 21, 2022 at Los Angeles, California.
24

25 NICHELLE D. JORDAN /S/ Nichelle D. Jordan
Type or Print Name Signature
26

PITCHESS MOTION

Case Info

Judge

Clark, Thomas S. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 22, 2022

Case Filing Date

March 24, 2021

County

Parties

BRADLEY QUINTANA Defendant
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant
CHRISTINA RINI Defendant
HALL AMBULANCE Defendant
JONES, NICHELLE D Attorney for the Plaintiff
LOMBARDI, BRYAN D. Defendant
MURPHY, MOLLY S Attorney for the Defendant
OFFICER BRYAN D. LOMBARDI Defendant
SOLIZ, JOE Plaintiff
TROPP, DEBORAH S. Attorney for the Defendant
Nichelle Jordan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Laura Lopez Montero Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Curls Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Carly English Attorneys for Defendants
Benjamin Barnouw Attorneys for Defendants
Laura Lopez Attorneys for Defendants
Blaine Noblett Attorney
Dennis Chin Attorney
MOLLY MURPHY Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: SOLIZ VS LOMBARDI

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties