Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 05/12/2022 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard K. Sueyoshi
CLERK: P. Lopez
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: None
CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 09/23/2019
CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Special Interrogatories) Taken under submission on 5/10/22
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff David Ridge's motion to compel Defendant California Highway Patrol to provide further
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and request for sanctions is ruled on as follows.
Moving counsel's notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as
required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise counsel
of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing.
Moving counsel is also order to be available at the hearing in the event opposing counsel appears
without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
Background
In this FEHA disability discrimination action, Plaintiff David Ridge ("Plaintiff") alleges that Defendant
California Highway Patrol ("CHP" or "Defendant") denied him a reasonable accommodation for his
physical disability, a back injury, which forced him into early retirement. He alleges that his disability
could have been accommodated by allowing him to wear his sidearm and equipment on a
weight-bearing vest instead of the traditional leather belt.
Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three, Nos. 9 ("SROG 9") and 10 ("SROG 10").
Legal Standards
On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a
further response if he or she deems any of the following: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is
evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil
Procedure 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or
(3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) The
Court begins its analysis by considering SROG 10.
SROG 10
DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS
SROG 10 asks Defendant to "identify each person that responded to Officer Erik Mallory's survey of
Defendant officers regarding external load-bearing vests." The term "identify" is defined as calling for the
person's full name, job title, any known aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone
numbers, and all known email addresses.
In response, Defendant provided the following objections:
1) This interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, and harassing given that there appear to
be over 300 survey respondents, not all respondents provided their full names when filing out the survey
response forms, and some of the respondents' names and CHP identification numbers are partially or
wholly illegible on the forms.
2) This interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant, admissible, nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore seeks information that is outside the scope
of discovery.
3) This interrogatory seeks information, the production of which would violate the Information Practices
Act, the Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights, and/or the privacy rights of non-litigants, and could
compromise the safety of law enforcement personnel, particularly providing personal information of
peace officers. (Briscoe Decl., Exh. 4.)
Without waiving those objections, CHP also responded that the answer would necessitate preparation of
a summary of or from the documents produced by CHP and the burden or expense of preparing that
summary would be the same for Plaintiff. CHP states those documents have been produced as identified
with certain Bates-stamped numbers. CHP also stated it was amenable to providing full names, present
job titles, work telephone numbers, and work email address for a limited number of signatories. (Ibid.)
Adequacy of Meet and Confer
As stated above, Plaintiff served its SROGs on February 28, 2022 and CHP served responses on March
29, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 7.) On March 31, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel spoke with CHP's counsel regarding the
responses, explaining that Plaintiff was not willing to settle for a sampling of responsive officers nor for
only their work contact information. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff's counsel states that on April 5, 2022, Defendant's
counsel again offered a sampling and refused to provide personal contact information. (Id., ¶ 9.)
In opposition to this motion, Defendant claims that it offered to produce work contact information for up
to 20 survey respondents and agreed to Plaintiff's suggestion that the parties split the cost of a
third-party administrator to contact the survey respondents to obtain permission to disclose their
personal information, but Plaintiff turned down both options. (Curren Decl., ¶¶ 5-7, 10.) Based on these
claims, Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith about this interrogatory. The
Court finds Defendant's argument on this point conclusory and unconvincing. Reviewing the exchange
between the parties' counsel provided in support and in opposition to this motion, the Court is not
convinced Plaintiff failed to meet-and-confer in good faith.
Merits of Motion
From the moving papers, it is clear Plaintiff seeks the personal contact information for certain peace
officers. SROG 10 asks Defendant to identify each person that responded to Officer Erik Mallory's
survey of Defendant officers regarding external load-bearing vests and the term "identify" is defined as
calling for the person's full name, job title, any known aliases, last known residential address, all known
telephone numbers, and all known email addresses. Plaintiff's counsel has declared its position that it is
not willing to settle for only the work contact information for the survey respondents. (Briscoe Decl., 8.) It
is also clear from Defendant's opposition that it only opposes with respect to the production of personal
contact information. (See Oppo., p. 11: 15-17, p. 14: 10-11, p. 16: 2-5, 12-15.) Defendant argues that
the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion because that personal information (1) is privileged from
DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS
discovery under the Pitchess procedure and the Information Practices Act and (2) is outside the scope of
discovery.
The Court begins with Defendant's Pitchess arguments. Although Defendant's response to SROG 10 did
not specifically mention Pitchess, the Court finds Defendant's reference to the privacy of peace officer
personal contact information sufficient. Penal Code section 832.7 provides that the "personnel records"
of peace officers, or information obtained from those 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. As used in this provision, the term "personnel records" means any file maintained under
that individual's name by his or her employing agency and containing records related to personal data,
among other things, including home addresses or similar information. (Pen. Code, § 832.8.) These
provisions are referred to as the Pitchess statutory scheme, which scheme "recognizes that evidence
contained in a law enforcement officer's personnel file may be relevant in a lawsuit, but that the officer
'has a strong privacy interest in his or her personnel records and that such records should not be
disclosed unnecessarily.'" (City of Tulare v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 373, 381-382.) Thus,
personnel records of peace officer, or information obtained from those records, can be disclosed in a
civil proceeding only under specified discovery procedures. These procedures provide the exclusive
means of discovery of such records in both criminal and civil proceedings. (County of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1605, 1609-1610.)
With respect to those procedures, Evidence Code 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; (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 such governmental agency identified has such records or information from such
records.'" (Brown v. Valverde (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1531, 1539.) Also, upon receipt of notice of a
Pitchess proceeding, the governmental agency must immediately notify the individual whose records are
sought. (Evid. Code § 1043 (c).) Evidence Code section 1043 further specifies that "[n]o hearing upon a
motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with the notice provisions of this
section except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for noncompliance, or upon waiver of
the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having the records." (Evid. Code § 1043(d).)
The Court agrees with Defendant that the personal information sought requires a Pitchess motion. In
reply, Plaintiff argues that its motion meets the standards for such motion because he has shown that
the information sought is relevant and has provided a statement upon reasonable belief that the police
agency has the records or the information at issue. (Reply, p: 5-13.) However, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's motion does not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Code section 1043. A Pitchess motion
must be supported by an affidavit that demonstrates good cause and sets forth specific and sufficient
facts demonstrating the materiality of the requested information to the subject matter involved in the
pending litigation. (City of San Jose v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th1135, 1145.) The declaration
Plaintiff's counsel presented with this motion does not meet this standard. Thus, the motion to compel
further responses is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff bringing a Pitchess motion. The Court
need not address Defendant's argument that this personal information is protected by the Information
Practices Act or is outside the scope of discovery.
Defendant's responses to SROG 10 and its opposition to this motion indicate that Defendant is willing to
disclose the work contact information "for a limited number of officers." (Oppo., p. 16: 7-8.) Plaintiff
clearly seeks the work contact information for all of the officers who responded to the survey.
Defendant's opposition only mentions this issue in passing, devoting the substance of its brief to the
DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS
personal contact information of peace officers. In addition, according to Plaintiff's moving papers,
Defendant produced unredacted copies of the survey responses but did not produce contact information
(work or otherwise) for those respondents. (Briscoe Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) To the extent Defendant attempts to
argue that the work contact information of the survey respondents is not likely to lead to the discovery of
relevant information because it seeks lay opinion, the Court finds that argument not well or clearly made
in its opposition papers and undercut by its provision of the responses themselves. Thus, the Court
rejects this argument for purposes of this motion. Any concern regarding the ultimate admissibility of the
views of these peace officers may be considered in the future. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with
respect to the work contact information for the survey respondents.
SROG 9
SROG 9 requests that the responding party "identify each officer of Defendant who, in the past twenty
years, has told Defendant's Uniform Committee that external load-bearing vests should be an approved
uniform item for Defendant's patrol officers." The term "identify" is defined as calling for the person's full
name, job title, any known aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone numbers, and all
known email addresses.
CHP responded with the following objections:
1) The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation with the respect to the phrase
"who, in the past twenty years, has told Defendant's Uniform Committee that external load-bearing vests
should be an approved uniform item."
2) The interrogatory is overly broad in time and scope and seeks information that is neither relevant,
admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is therefore
outside the scope of discovery, and is unduly burdensome.
3) The interrogatory calls for improper opinion testimony and a legal conclusion.
4) Revealing the names or statements or medical information of CHP personnel violates the Information
Practices Act, the Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights, and/or the privacy rights of non-litigants.
(Briscoe Decl., Exh. 4.)
Without waiving these objections, CHP identified Officers Todd Kovaletz and Kury Mallory as having
presented external load-bearing vests to CDCR's Uniform Committee. (Ibid.)
Adequacy of Meet-and-Confer Efforts
As an initial matter, CHP argues that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith with respect to this
interrogatory. A motion for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories must be
accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal
resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b).)
Here, Plaintiff served its SROGs on February 28, 2022 and CHP served responses on March 29, 2022.
(Briscoe Decl, ¶¶ 6, 7.) On March 31, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel spoke with CHP's counsel regarding the
responses. (Id., ¶ 8.) With respect to SROG 9, Plaintiff's counsel explained his position that CHP
answered the interrogatory evasively. (Ibid.) Plaintiff's counsel also offered to stipulate to a protective
order that he would not use names or contact information outside this case and would not file personal
contact information in the public record. On April 5, 2022, CHP's counsel emailed Plaintiff's counsel that
CHP was "in the process of determining if there is any record of any CHP officer 'telling' the Uniform
Committee 'that external load-bearing vests should be an approved uniform item for [CHP's] patrol
DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 4
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS
officers,' and, if we identify any such officers, we will serve a further response to [SROG 9] with work
contact information for those officers, but not personal contact information, residential addresses, etc."
(Id., Exh. 5.)
Defendant's counsel states that he learned, on April 25, 2022, after Plaintiff's motion was served, that
there is no record of any CHP officer making the specified statement to the Uniform Committee.
Defendant states it plans to serve a further response to SROG 9 stating that it made a reasonable and
good faith effort to obtain the information. Defendant argues that "Plaintiff's counsel thus did not confer in
good faith with CHP's counsel about Interrogatory No. 9." The Court disagrees. Based on counsels'
opposing declaration, it is clear they did not agree on limiting the identifying information to work contact
information. Thus, Plaintiff had no reason to allow Defendant additional time to find the information
would be fruitful. The Court finds Plaintiff's meet-and-confer efforts with respect to SROG 9 were
adequate.
Merits of Motion
To the extent Defendant argues Plaintiff's motion with respect to SROG 9 is moot because it is has
determined there is no record of the information requested, the Court disagrees. Belated service of
responses does not render a motion to compel discovery moot. The moving party is entitled to a ruling
once the motion is made. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5.) As Defendant does not provide justification
for any of its objections served in its responses to SROG 9, those objections are OVERRULED.
However, the provision of personal data of peace officers requires a Pitchess motion and the Court is not
convinced Defendant has waived the protections of the Pitchess statutes. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to
compel provision of personal data is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff bringing a Pitchess
motion. In all other respects, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to SROG 9 is GRANTED.
The Court expresses no opinion about the sufficiency of Defendant's proposed response.
Sanctions
As this motion was partially successful and partially unsuccessful, the parties opposing requests for
sanctions are DENIED. The Court finds the motion and opposition were both made with substantial
justification.
Disposition
Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. With respect to the
GRANTED portion, Defendant shall serve further responses, consistent with the foregoing, no later than
June 1, 2022, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted.
The matter was taken under submission.
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 5
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS
Having taken the matter under submission on 5/10/22, the Court now rules as follows:
The Court has considered the respective oral arguments of the parties. Defendant argued that in
relation to the Court's tentative ruling regarding SROG 10, the time required for CHP personnel to obtain
the "work contact information" for each of the survey respondents would be unduly burdensome. The
Court finds that CHP has not made a sufficient showing in its opposition papers to a degree as to
establish the time required to collect the subject information. Further, to the extent that counsel's oral
representations during the hearing are accurate, the Court finds that such required time would not
necessity partial denial of Plaintiff's motion so as to reduce the discoverable information. Therefore, the
Court AFFIRMS the tentative ruling. Defendant shall have until June 17, 2022 to serve its supplemental
response.
DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 6
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 05/12/2022 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: 53 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard K. Sueyoshi CLERK: P. Lopez REPORTER/ERM: None BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: None CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 09/23/2019 CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories) Taken under submission on 5/10/22 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff David Ridge's motion to compel Defendant California Highway Patrol to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and request for sanctions is ruled on as follows. Moving counsel's notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. Moving counsel is also order to be available at the hearing in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B). Background In this FEHA disability discrimination action, Plaintiff David Ridge ("Plaintiff") alleges that Defendant California Highway Patrol ("CHP" or "Defendant") denied him a reasonable accommodation for his physical disability, a back injury, which forced him into early retirement. He alleges that his disability could have been accommodated by allowing him to wear his sidearm and equipment on a weight-bearing vest instead of the traditional leather belt. Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 9 ("SROG 9") and 10 ("SROG 10"). Legal Standards On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if he or she deems any of the following: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) The Court begins its analysis by considering SROG 10. SROG 10 DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS SROG 10 asks Defendant to "identify each person that responded to Officer Erik Mallory's survey of Defendant officers regarding external load-bearing vests." The term "identify" is defined as calling for the person's full name, job title, any known aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone numbers, and all known email addresses. In response, Defendant provided the following objections: 1) This interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, and harassing given that there appear to be over 300 survey respondents, not all respondents provided their full names when filing out the survey response forms, and some of the respondents' names and CHP identification numbers are partially or wholly illegible on the forms. 2) This interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant, admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore seeks information that is outside the scope of discovery. 3) This interrogatory seeks information, the production of which would violate the Information Practices Act, the Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights, and/or the privacy rights of non-litigants, and could compromise the safety of law enforcement personnel, particularly providing personal information of peace officers. (Briscoe Decl., Exh. 4.) Without waiving those objections, CHP also responded that the answer would necessitate preparation of a summary of or from the documents produced by CHP and the burden or expense of preparing that summary would be the same for Plaintiff. CHP states those documents have been produced as identified with certain Bates-stamped numbers. CHP also stated it was amenable to providing full names, present job titles, work telephone numbers, and work email address for a limited number of signatories. (Ibid.) Adequacy of Meet and Confer As stated above, Plaintiff served its SROGs on February 28, 2022 and CHP served responses on March 29, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 7.) On March 31, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel spoke with CHP's counsel regarding the responses, explaining that Plaintiff was not willing to settle for a sampling of responsive officers nor for only their work contact information. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff's counsel states that on April 5, 2022, Defendant's counsel again offered a sampling and refused to provide personal contact information. (Id., ¶ 9.) In opposition to this motion, Defendant claims that it offered to produce work contact information for up to 20 survey respondents and agreed to Plaintiff's suggestion that the parties split the cost of a third-party administrator to contact the survey respondents to obtain permission to disclose their personal information, but Plaintiff turned down both options. (Curren Decl., ¶¶ 5-7, 10.) Based on these claims, Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith about this interrogatory. The Court finds Defendant's argument on this point conclusory and unconvincing. Reviewing the exchange between the parties' counsel provided in support and in opposition to this motion, the Court is not convinced Plaintiff failed to meet-and-confer in good faith. Merits of Motion From the moving papers, it is clear Plaintiff seeks the personal contact information for certain peace officers. SROG 10 asks Defendant to identify each person that responded to Officer Erik Mallory's survey of Defendant officers regarding external load-bearing vests and the term "identify" is defined as calling for the person's full name, job title, any known aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone numbers, and all known email addresses. Plaintiff's counsel has declared its position that it is not willing to settle for only the work contact information for the survey respondents. (Briscoe Decl., 8.) It is also clear from Defendant's opposition that it only opposes with respect to the production of personal contact information. (See Oppo., p. 11: 15-17, p. 14: 10-11, p. 16: 2-5, 12-15.) Defendant argues that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion because that personal information (1) is privileged from DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS discovery under the Pitchess procedure and the Information Practices Act and (2) is outside the scope of discovery. The Court begins with Defendant's Pitchess arguments. Although Defendant's response to SROG 10 did not specifically mention Pitchess, the Court finds Defendant's reference to the privacy of peace officer personal contact information sufficient. Penal Code section 832.7 provides that the "personnel records" of peace officers, or information obtained from those 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. As used in this provision, the term "personnel records" means any file maintained under that individual's name by his or her employing agency and containing records related to personal data, among other things, including home addresses or similar information. (Pen. Code, § 832.8.) These provisions are referred to as the Pitchess statutory scheme, which scheme "recognizes that evidence contained in a law enforcement officer's personnel file may be relevant in a lawsuit, but that the officer 'has a strong privacy interest in his or her personnel records and that such records should not be disclosed unnecessarily.'" (City of Tulare v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 373, 381-382.) Thus, personnel records of peace officer, or information obtained from those records, can be disclosed in a civil proceeding only under specified discovery procedures. These procedures provide the exclusive means of discovery of such records in both criminal and civil proceedings. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1605, 1609-1610.) With respect to those procedures, Evidence Code 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; (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 such governmental agency identified has such records or information from such records.'" (Brown v. Valverde (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1531, 1539.) Also, upon receipt of notice of a Pitchess proceeding, the governmental agency must immediately notify the individual whose records are sought. (Evid. Code § 1043 (c).) Evidence Code section 1043 further specifies that "[n]o hearing upon a motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with the notice provisions of this section except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for noncompliance, or upon waiver of the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having the records." (Evid. Code § 1043(d).) The Court agrees with Defendant that the personal information sought requires a Pitchess motion. In reply, Plaintiff argues that its motion meets the standards for such motion because he has shown that the information sought is relevant and has provided a statement upon reasonable belief that the police agency has the records or the information at issue. (Reply, p: 5-13.) However, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion does not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Code section 1043. A Pitchess motion must be supported by an affidavit that demonstrates good cause and sets forth specific and sufficient facts demonstrating the materiality of the requested information to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation. (City of San Jose v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th1135, 1145.) The declaration Plaintiff's counsel presented with this motion does not meet this standard. Thus, the motion to compel further responses is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff bringing a Pitchess motion. The Court need not address Defendant's argument that this personal information is protected by the Information Practices Act or is outside the scope of discovery. Defendant's responses to SROG 10 and its opposition to this motion indicate that Defendant is willing to disclose the work contact information "for a limited number of officers." (Oppo., p. 16: 7-8.) Plaintiff clearly seeks the work contact information for all of the officers who responded to the survey. Defendant's opposition only mentions this issue in passing, devoting the substance of its brief to the DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS personal contact information of peace officers. In addition, according to Plaintiff's moving papers, Defendant produced unredacted copies of the survey responses but did not produce contact information (work or otherwise) for those respondents. (Briscoe Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) To the extent Defendant attempts to argue that the work contact information of the survey respondents is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information because it seeks lay opinion, the Court finds that argument not well or clearly made in its opposition papers and undercut by its provision of the responses themselves. Thus, the Court rejects this argument for purposes of this motion. Any concern regarding the ultimate admissibility of the views of these peace officers may be considered in the future. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with respect to the work contact information for the survey respondents. SROG 9 SROG 9 requests that the responding party "identify each officer of Defendant who, in the past twenty years, has told Defendant's Uniform Committee that external load-bearing vests should be an approved uniform item for Defendant's patrol officers." The term "identify" is defined as calling for the person's full name, job title, any known aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone numbers, and all known email addresses. CHP responded with the following objections: 1) The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation with the respect to the phrase "who, in the past twenty years, has told Defendant's Uniform Committee that external load-bearing vests should be an approved uniform item." 2) The interrogatory is overly broad in time and scope and seeks information that is neither relevant, admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is therefore outside the scope of discovery, and is unduly burdensome. 3) The interrogatory calls for improper opinion testimony and a legal conclusion. 4) Revealing the names or statements or medical information of CHP personnel violates the Information Practices Act, the Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights, and/or the privacy rights of non-litigants. (Briscoe Decl., Exh. 4.) Without waiving these objections, CHP identified Officers Todd Kovaletz and Kury Mallory as having presented external load-bearing vests to CDCR's Uniform Committee. (Ibid.) Adequacy of Meet-and-Confer Efforts As an initial matter, CHP argues that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith with respect to this interrogatory. A motion for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b).) Here, Plaintiff served its SROGs on February 28, 2022 and CHP served responses on March 29, 2022. (Briscoe Decl, ¶¶ 6, 7.) On March 31, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel spoke with CHP's counsel regarding the responses. (Id., ¶ 8.) With respect to SROG 9, Plaintiff's counsel explained his position that CHP answered the interrogatory evasively. (Ibid.) Plaintiff's counsel also offered to stipulate to a protective order that he would not use names or contact information outside this case and would not file personal contact information in the public record. On April 5, 2022, CHP's counsel emailed Plaintiff's counsel that CHP was "in the process of determining if there is any record of any CHP officer 'telling' the Uniform Committee 'that external load-bearing vests should be an approved uniform item for [CHP's] patrol DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 4 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS officers,' and, if we identify any such officers, we will serve a further response to [SROG 9] with work contact information for those officers, but not personal contact information, residential addresses, etc." (Id., Exh. 5.) Defendant's counsel states that he learned, on April 25, 2022, after Plaintiff's motion was served, that there is no record of any CHP officer making the specified statement to the Uniform Committee. Defendant states it plans to serve a further response to SROG 9 stating that it made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. Defendant argues that "Plaintiff's counsel thus did not confer in good faith with CHP's counsel about Interrogatory No. 9." The Court disagrees. Based on counsels' opposing declaration, it is clear they did not agree on limiting the identifying information to work contact information. Thus, Plaintiff had no reason to allow Defendant additional time to find the information would be fruitful. The Court finds Plaintiff's meet-and-confer efforts with respect to SROG 9 were adequate. Merits of Motion To the extent Defendant argues Plaintiff's motion with respect to SROG 9 is moot because it is has determined there is no record of the information requested, the Court disagrees. Belated service of responses does not render a motion to compel discovery moot. The moving party is entitled to a ruling once the motion is made. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5.) As Defendant does not provide justification for any of its objections served in its responses to SROG 9, those objections are OVERRULED. However, the provision of personal data of peace officers requires a Pitchess motion and the Court is not convinced Defendant has waived the protections of the Pitchess statutes. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel provision of personal data is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff bringing a Pitchess motion. In all other respects, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to SROG 9 is GRANTED. The Court expresses no opinion about the sufficiency of Defendant's proposed response. Sanctions As this motion was partially successful and partially unsuccessful, the parties opposing requests for sanctions are DENIED. The Court finds the motion and opposition were both made with substantial justification. Disposition Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. With respect to the GRANTED portion, Defendant shall serve further responses, consistent with the foregoing, no later than June 1, 2022, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. COURT RULING The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission. SUBMITTED MATTER RULING DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 5 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol CASE NO: 34-2019-00265393-CU-OE-GDS Having taken the matter under submission on 5/10/22, the Court now rules as follows: The Court has considered the respective oral arguments of the parties. Defendant argued that in relation to the Court's tentative ruling regarding SROG 10, the time required for CHP personnel to obtain the "work contact information" for each of the survey respondents would be unduly burdensome. The Court finds that CHP has not made a sufficient showing in its opposition papers to a degree as to establish the time required to collect the subject information. Further, to the extent that counsel's oral representations during the hearing are accurate, the Court finds that such required time would not necessity partial denial of Plaintiff's motion so as to reduce the discoverable information. Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the tentative ruling. Defendant shall have until June 17, 2022 to serve its supplemental response. DATE: 05/12/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 6 DEPT: 53 Calendar No.