Preview
Matthew J. Orebic, SBN' 124491
The Law Office of Matthew J. Orebic
1870 San Antonio Avenue
m
.
‘
L ECauNTY
.
Berkeley, CA 94707
Telephone: (5 1 O) 540-1050
E—Mail: Matthew@0rebicLaw.com 8AM MATEO
Attorney for Defendant City of East Palo Alto
at
(presumablyas to use 0f force). (Id. 12:2-3.)
The following two aspects of plaihtiff‘s counsel Declaration afe factually incorrect as a
{
matter of law and thefeforc should be disregarded;
‘1'.
“Chavez states he was not resisting.” This is incorrect. Plaintiff'stated in his
deposition he dées not remerhber anything at all about his interaction with Officer McAlindon.
\OOOQONUI-k
(Orebic Decl. Ex. A at pp. 41—43, and 46.) Therefbre, contrary to plaintiff s counsel’s
Declaration, plaintiff'has made no statement (and has no recollection) as to whether or not he
V
was resisting.
10 2. “Officer McAlindon’s discovery answers lregarding the facts surrounding the incident
11' differs materially fror‘n'plaintiff’ s version of events.” This is incorrect. Officér McAlindon has
12 not made .any discovery answers. (Orebic Decl. Para. 3.) He is not yet a party to this case. (Id)
‘
13- Only the City has provided discovery respbnses. (Id)
14 A. There Is No Dispute About Truthfulness Because There IsNo Officer Statement
15, On the issue of truthfulness, a litigant seeking Pitchess discovery must establish how the
16 discovery being sought would “impeach the officer’s version of events.” (Warrick v. Superior
17 Court (2005) 35 Ca1.4th 101 1, 1022.) hHere, contrary to plaintiff s counsel’s Declaration, there is
18 no statement before the Court by Officer McAlindofi that plaintiff alleges is untrue. Officer
19' McAlindon did not make any statement in discovery responses. There is no police report before
20 the Court. Without a factual dispute over a statement by Officer McAlindon there is no basis for
21 'a
Pitchess motion based 0n his alleged lack of truthfulness.
22 B. There Is No Disbute As To The Force Used
23 There is also no factual dispute as t6 the force used in this case for two reasons. First, the
24 entire incident was captured on a security camera Video tape. Second, plaintiff has no
25' recollection of the incident. Rather, the only issue in this case is whether the force shown on the
26 Video tape was reasonable. This narrow issue is not a sufficient basis fof a Pitchess motion
‘27 because even if any other complaint 0f excessive force exists, itisrnot material to the what can
28 be readily seen in the Videotape. Without some type of dispute about what happened, there is no
‘
3
CITY’S OPPOS. TO PITCHESS MOTION - NO. 18 CiV 03280
good cause for Pitchess discovery.
N III. CATEGORIES 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 1; and 14 ARE OVERBROADAND IMPROPER
Despite the limited scope of the motion in plaintiff s Notice of Motion, in plaintiff" s
Opening Brief at Pages 6-8, plaintiff appears to expand the scope of his motion by requesting 14
flQUI-PDJ
categories 0f information. Items 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14,4are overbroad, irrelevant, or do
not seek personnel information.
Items 3, 6, and 7 seeks the names and assignments of Internal Affairs investigators, and
the written procedures of Internal Affairs investigators. These requests do not seek a personnel
record, and therefore, are not a proper subj éct 0f a Pitchess motion. These items should be
10 sought through the civil discovery processgthe latter of which the City already ‘produced.
11. Item 9 seeks a‘11reports filed by Officer McAlindon regarding the use of weapons. This
12 request also does not seek a personnel record, and therefore, is not a proper subj ect of a Pitchess
13v motion. These reports should be sought through the civil discovery process. This item isalso
14 over broad because it isundisputed n0 we’afion was used in this incident. Finally, this item is
15 irrelevant because there i's
no claim in the Complaint in this case of any pattern or practice of
16 misconduct by Officer McAlindon involving weapons or otherwise.
17 Item 10 seeks all arrest reports by Officer McAlindon. This request also does not seek a
18 s
personnel record, and therefore, is not a proper subj ect 0f a Pitchess motion. This item should
19 be sought through the civil disCovery process. This item is also over broad, unduly invasive of
20 third parties’ privacy, and irrelevant because it isundisputed there was no arrest in this incident.
21 Finally, this item is irrelevantbecause there is no claim in the Complaint in this case of any
'
22‘ pattern or practice of misconduct by Officer McAlindon involving arrests or otherwise.
'11
23 Item seeks all reports regarding injuries sustained by Officer McAlindon. This isover
24 broad, unduly invasive 0f the officer’s privacy, and irrelevant because the officer has not
25 asserted he was injured in this incident. It isalso irrelevant bécause there is no claim in the
26 Complaint in this ca'se of any pattern or practice of misconduct by Officer McAlindon.
27 Item 12 seeks all performance evaluations of Officer McAlindon. This isover broad,
28 undu1y inV aSiVC Of the Officer’s pI‘i V aC Y ,
and irrele Vant because there iS I10Claim thlS case
il’l 0f
4
CITY’S oppos. T07 PITCHESS MOTION - No. 18 CIV 0328.0-
failure to supervise 0r discipline the officer, or any pattern of misconduct.
Item 14 seeks Departmental Rules re: use of force and other categories. This request
does not seek a personnel record, and therefore, not a proper subj ect of a Pitchess motion. These
are public records and have already been produced in discovery.
III. CATEGORY13 RE: DISCIPLINE IS ALSO OVERBROAD AND IMPROPER
Item 13 seeks “all records of discipline including administrative violations” for Officer
Q0
McAlindon. With respect to records of discipline only disciplinary results of relevant
investigations are discoverable i'na Pitchess motion. (City ofSan Jose v. Superior Court (1993)
5 Cal. 4th 47, 56—57.) In City ofSan Jose, the Supreme Court again confirmed that verbatim
10 reports and conclusions of investigating officers are not subject to disclosure. In doing so, it
11 explained that the Legislafure has distinguished between disciplinary results (i.e.,sustained, not
12 sustained, exonerated 0r unfounded) and interim conclusions of investigating officers. The
13 former, the Court held, are subject to disclosure while the latter are not. (Id)
14 III. CATEGORIES 1, 2, 4,i AND 8 ARE ALSO OVERBROAD AND IMPROPER
15 In Item 1,plaintiff seeks the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of complaints
16 regarding “excessive force, acts of harassment or malicious conduct against citizens, racial
17 profiling, dishonesty, fabricated reports and/or testimony, and acts 0f moral turpitude.”
18 Similarly, Item 8 seeks all statements and opinions about Officer McAlindon regarding
19 unreasonable use of force, violence, harassment, filalicious conduct, racial profiling, dishonesty,
20 fabricated reports or testimony, and any act demofistrating mérally lax character.
21 Items 1 and 8 that are improper and overbroad for several reasons. First, there is nothing
22 in plaintiff s counsel’s Declaration related to “racial profiling.” It is undisputed Officer
23 McAlindon was called to the scene to assist the paramedics in making a medical evaluation of
24 plaintiff.
25 Second, there is no basis in plaintiff s‘ counsel’s Declaration to support Pitchess
26 discovery on “dishonesty, or fabricated reports or testimony” because there are no disputed facts
27 in this case. As explained above, the video tape and plaintiffs lack of recall eliminate any
28 factual disputes, and there are n0 statements by Officer McAlindon before the Court that are in
5
CITY’S OPPOS. TO PITCHESS MOTION — NO. 18 CIV 03280
dispute.
Third, the terms “morally lax character” or “moral turpitude” are too vague to constitute
a category.
For these reasons, even if plaintiff’s counsel’s Declaration could be cofisidered an
adequate basis for a Pitchess motion, the motion should be limited to the subj ect of excessive
3‘
force alone as there is no basis to extend the motion to these other categories due to the lack 0f
any supporting allegations for them.
\OOOQQ
Items 2, 4, and 5 seek the physical files and taped statements for all complaints described
1
in Item 1, while Item 8 seeks “all statements and opinions about Officer McAlindon” regarding
10, all?he above categqries. These requests are over broad because, “absent a finding by the trial
11 court that the initial contact information is inadequate to prepare his case, plaintiffs [are] entitled,
12 at most, t0 the names and addresses of;other persons who complained within five years
13 preceding the plaintiffs’ arrest.” (City ofAzusa v. Superior Court‘(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d at 696—
14 97 .) Defendant is not entitled to witness statemefits, investigation notes, tape recordings and
15 transcriptions, or reports and records of investigating personnel. (City ofSan Jose v. Superior
16 Com (1993) 5 Ca1.4'th 47, 57.)
17 IV. AS TO THE IA REPORT IN THIS CASE;AT MOST, ONLY DISCLOSURE OF
STATEMENTS REGARDING THE USE OF FORCE IS APPROPRIATE
18
Plaintiff argues that under Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Ca1.App.4th 1079,
19
1089, the Internal Affairs (“IA”) report concerning the incident in this case can be disclosed, if
20
the opinions and conclusions of the investigating officer are redacted from the report. In
21
Haggerty, the court held the well-settled and customary limit in case law on only disclosing
22
nar'nes, addresses, and felephone numbers of other complainants may not be applicable in every
23
civil suit in which the plaintiff seeks discovery of the IA report 0n the incident underlying the
24
lawsuit. Part of the court’s feasoning was that statements in the IA report could be used to
25
impeach the officer. (161.)Here, the‘re isnothing to impeach because the video shows what
26'
occurred and there is.no factual dispute becfius‘e of both the Video and plaintiff‘s lack of recall.
27 ‘
Therefore, the veracity issue that was key in Haggerty is absent from this case.
28
6
CiTY’s OPPOS. To PITCHESS MOTION - N0. 18 CIV 03280
Further, the Haggerty court was careful to state, “our holding in this caselldoes not mean
that law enforcement internal invesfigation reports of the incident at issue in a lawsuit must be
routinely disclosed. The court in each case must make an initial finding that the requested
mp‘ww
‘
information ismaterial, and after reviewing the information at an in camera hearing.” (117
Ca1.App.4th 1091 .) This cautionary text supports a finding that even if plaintiff s counsel’s
Declaration could' be considered an adequate basis for a Pitchess motion, only the IA statements
by Officer McAlindon and any witness t0 his use of force would be discoverable, not the entire
\OOOQQ
IA report.
CONCLUSION
10 For the foregoing reasons, the City requests the Court deny the motion. If the Court
11 determines there is good cause for the motion, the City requests the Court conduct any review of
12 the officer’s confidential personnel records in camera withOut plaintiff s counsel present as
13 required by law. (Evid. Code 1045(b); People v.Matos (1979) 92 Cal.Aplp.3d 862.) If any
14 discovery is granted, the City requests itbe limited to the names, addresses, and telephone
15 numbers 0f complainants and applicable witnesses. As to the IA report concerning this case, the
16 City requests that if any discovery is ordered, it be limited to the statements by Officer
17 McAlindon and any witness pertaining to what occurred When he arrived and his use of force.
18 Finally, the City requests if any discovery ‘isgranted, the accompanying protective order is
19 issued as required by Evidence Code section 1045(d) and (e).
20
21‘
I
Date: May 8, ‘2019 Respectfully submitted:
22
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW J. OREBIC
23
0;!,aA
§
A
Byrv
24
MATTHE .OREBIC
Attorney for Defendant City of East Palo Alto
25
26
27
28 x
.
7 r
CITY’S OPPOS. TO PITCHESS MOTION - NO. 18 CIV 03280
POS-050IEFS-050
ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY:
STATE BAR No:
124,491 FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME:Matthew J. Orebic
Law Office
FIRM NAME: of Matthew J. Orebic
1870 San Antonio Ave.
STREET ADDRESS:
Berkeley
CITY: STATE:CA ZIPCODE:94707
TELEPHONE N0; 51 o 540-1 050 FAX No.2n/a
Matthew@0rebicLaw.com
E—MAIL ADDRESS:
ATTORNEY FOR Defendant City of East Palo Alto
(name):
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo
STREET ADDRESS:
400 County Center
400 County Center
MAILING ADDRESS:
Redwood City 94063
CITY AND zlP CODE:
BRANCH NAME:Southern Branch; Hall of Justice Records CASE NUMBER:
18 CIV 03280
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jose Chavez
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: City of East Palo Alto JUDICIAL OFFICEFf:
Law and Motion
DEPARTMENT:
PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE Law and Motion
1. |am at least18 yearsold.
a. My residence or business address is(specify):
1870 San Antonio Avenue
Berkeley,CA 94707
b. My electronic service address
Is (specify)
Matthew@0rebicLaw. com
2- |electronically served the following documents (exact titles):
r
Defendant City of East Palo Alto's Opposition to Plaintiff's Pitchess Motion; Declaration of Matthew
J.Orebic inSupport of
Opposition with Exhibit A attached; Proposed Order
E The documents served are an attachment. (Form POS—050(D)/EFS-050(D)
listed in may be used for this purpose.)
3. l served the documents
electronically 2 as follows:
listed in
a. Name of person served:Nikolaus Reed
On behalf of(name or names ofparties represented, ifperson servedisan attorney):
Jose Chavez
Plaintiff
b. Electronic service address 0f person served
.'
tom@muller-legal.com
c. On (date):May 8.2019
D The documents listed in item 2 were served electronically on the persons and
(Form POS-050(P)/EFS—050(P) may be used for this purpose.)
inthe manner described inan attachment.
Date: 5/8/19
ldeclare under penalfy of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoin
and correct.
.
\
Matthew J.Oreb|c >
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
Page
1of1
Form Approved Use
for Optional
Judicial Council of California
PROOF 0F ELECTRONIC SERV|CE Coun,
Cal. Rules of 2.251
rule
www.courts.ca.gov
Pos-osoIEFs-050[Rev. February
2017]
1, (Proof of Service/Electronic Filing and Service)
Preview
Matthew J. Orebic, SBN' 124491 The Law Office of Matthew J. Orebic 1870 San Antonio Avenue m . ‘ L ECauNTY . Berkeley, CA 94707 Telephone: (5 1 O) 540-1050 E—Mail: Matthew@0rebicLaw.com 8AM MATEO Attorney for Defendant City of East Palo Alto at (presumablyas to use 0f force). (Id. 12:2-3.) The following two aspects of plaihtiff‘s counsel Declaration afe factually incorrect as a { matter of law and thefeforc should be disregarded; ‘1'. “Chavez states he was not resisting.” This is incorrect. Plaintiff'stated in his deposition he dées not remerhber anything at all about his interaction with Officer McAlindon. \OOOQONUI-k (Orebic Decl. Ex. A at pp. 41—43, and 46.) Therefbre, contrary to plaintiff s counsel’s Declaration, plaintiff'has made no statement (and has no recollection) as to whether or not he V was resisting. 10 2. “Officer McAlindon’s discovery answers lregarding the facts surrounding the incident 11' differs materially fror‘n'plaintiff’ s version of events.” This is incorrect. Officér McAlindon has 12 not made .any discovery answers. (Orebic Decl. Para. 3.) He is not yet a party to this case. (Id) ‘ 13- Only the City has provided discovery respbnses. (Id) 14 A. There Is No Dispute About Truthfulness Because There IsNo Officer Statement 15, On the issue of truthfulness, a litigant seeking Pitchess discovery must establish how the 16 discovery being sought would “impeach the officer’s version of events.” (Warrick v. Superior 17 Court (2005) 35 Ca1.4th 101 1, 1022.) hHere, contrary to plaintiff s counsel’s Declaration, there is 18 no statement before the Court by Officer McAlindofi that plaintiff alleges is untrue. Officer 19' McAlindon did not make any statement in discovery responses. There is no police report before 20 the Court. Without a factual dispute over a statement by Officer McAlindon there is no basis for 21 'a Pitchess motion based 0n his alleged lack of truthfulness. 22 B. There Is No Disbute As To The Force Used 23 There is also no factual dispute as t6 the force used in this case for two reasons. First, the 24 entire incident was captured on a security camera Video tape. Second, plaintiff has no 25' recollection of the incident. Rather, the only issue in this case is whether the force shown on the 26 Video tape was reasonable. This narrow issue is not a sufficient basis fof a Pitchess motion ‘27 because even if any other complaint 0f excessive force exists, itisrnot material to the what can 28 be readily seen in the Videotape. Without some type of dispute about what happened, there is no ‘ 3 CITY’S OPPOS. TO PITCHESS MOTION - NO. 18 CiV 03280 good cause for Pitchess discovery. N III. CATEGORIES 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 1; and 14 ARE OVERBROADAND IMPROPER Despite the limited scope of the motion in plaintiff s Notice of Motion, in plaintiff" s Opening Brief at Pages 6-8, plaintiff appears to expand the scope of his motion by requesting 14 flQUI-PDJ categories 0f information. Items 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14,4are overbroad, irrelevant, or do not seek personnel information. Items 3, 6, and 7 seeks the names and assignments of Internal Affairs investigators, and the written procedures of Internal Affairs investigators. These requests do not seek a personnel record, and therefore, are not a proper subj éct 0f a Pitchess motion. These items should be 10 sought through the civil discovery processgthe latter of which the City already ‘produced. 11. Item 9 seeks a‘11reports filed by Officer McAlindon regarding the use of weapons. This 12 request also does not seek a personnel record, and therefore, is not a proper subj ect of a Pitchess 13v motion. These reports should be sought through the civil discovery process. This item isalso 14 over broad because it isundisputed n0 we’afion was used in this incident. Finally, this item is 15 irrelevant because there i's no claim in the Complaint in this case of any pattern or practice of 16 misconduct by Officer McAlindon involving weapons or otherwise. 17 Item 10 seeks all arrest reports by Officer McAlindon. This request also does not seek a 18 s personnel record, and therefore, is not a proper subj ect 0f a Pitchess motion. This item should 19 be sought through the civil disCovery process. This item is also over broad, unduly invasive of 20 third parties’ privacy, and irrelevant because it isundisputed there was no arrest in this incident. 21 Finally, this item is irrelevantbecause there is no claim in the Complaint in this case of any ' 22‘ pattern or practice of misconduct by Officer McAlindon involving arrests or otherwise. '11 23 Item seeks all reports regarding injuries sustained by Officer McAlindon. This isover 24 broad, unduly invasive 0f the officer’s privacy, and irrelevant because the officer has not 25 asserted he was injured in this incident. It isalso irrelevant bécause there is no claim in the 26 Complaint in this ca'se of any pattern or practice of misconduct by Officer McAlindon. 27 Item 12 seeks all performance evaluations of Officer McAlindon. This isover broad, 28 undu1y inV aSiVC Of the Officer’s pI‘i V aC Y , and irrele Vant because there iS I10Claim thlS case il’l 0f 4 CITY’S oppos. T07 PITCHESS MOTION - No. 18 CIV 0328.0- failure to supervise 0r discipline the officer, or any pattern of misconduct. Item 14 seeks Departmental Rules re: use of force and other categories. This request does not seek a personnel record, and therefore, not a proper subj ect of a Pitchess motion. These are public records and have already been produced in discovery. III. CATEGORY13 RE: DISCIPLINE IS ALSO OVERBROAD AND IMPROPER Item 13 seeks “all records of discipline including administrative violations” for Officer Q0 McAlindon. With respect to records of discipline only disciplinary results of relevant investigations are discoverable i'na Pitchess motion. (City ofSan Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 47, 56—57.) In City ofSan Jose, the Supreme Court again confirmed that verbatim 10 reports and conclusions of investigating officers are not subject to disclosure. In doing so, it 11 explained that the Legislafure has distinguished between disciplinary results (i.e.,sustained, not 12 sustained, exonerated 0r unfounded) and interim conclusions of investigating officers. The 13 former, the Court held, are subject to disclosure while the latter are not. (Id) 14 III. CATEGORIES 1, 2, 4,i AND 8 ARE ALSO OVERBROAD AND IMPROPER 15 In Item 1,plaintiff seeks the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of complaints 16 regarding “excessive force, acts of harassment or malicious conduct against citizens, racial 17 profiling, dishonesty, fabricated reports and/or testimony, and acts 0f moral turpitude.” 18 Similarly, Item 8 seeks all statements and opinions about Officer McAlindon regarding 19 unreasonable use of force, violence, harassment, filalicious conduct, racial profiling, dishonesty, 20 fabricated reports or testimony, and any act demofistrating mérally lax character. 21 Items 1 and 8 that are improper and overbroad for several reasons. First, there is nothing 22 in plaintiff s counsel’s Declaration related to “racial profiling.” It is undisputed Officer 23 McAlindon was called to the scene to assist the paramedics in making a medical evaluation of 24 plaintiff. 25 Second, there is no basis in plaintiff s‘ counsel’s Declaration to support Pitchess 26 discovery on “dishonesty, or fabricated reports or testimony” because there are no disputed facts 27 in this case. As explained above, the video tape and plaintiffs lack of recall eliminate any 28 factual disputes, and there are n0 statements by Officer McAlindon before the Court that are in 5 CITY’S OPPOS. TO PITCHESS MOTION — NO. 18 CIV 03280 dispute. Third, the terms “morally lax character” or “moral turpitude” are too vague to constitute a category. For these reasons, even if plaintiff’s counsel’s Declaration could be cofisidered an adequate basis for a Pitchess motion, the motion should be limited to the subj ect of excessive 3‘ force alone as there is no basis to extend the motion to these other categories due to the lack 0f any supporting allegations for them. \OOOQQ Items 2, 4, and 5 seek the physical files and taped statements for all complaints described 1 in Item 1, while Item 8 seeks “all statements and opinions about Officer McAlindon” regarding 10, all?he above categqries. These requests are over broad because, “absent a finding by the trial 11 court that the initial contact information is inadequate to prepare his case, plaintiffs [are] entitled, 12 at most, t0 the names and addresses of;other persons who complained within five years 13 preceding the plaintiffs’ arrest.” (City ofAzusa v. Superior Court‘(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d at 696— 14 97 .) Defendant is not entitled to witness statemefits, investigation notes, tape recordings and 15 transcriptions, or reports and records of investigating personnel. (City ofSan Jose v. Superior 16 Com (1993) 5 Ca1.4'th 47, 57.) 17 IV. AS TO THE IA REPORT IN THIS CASE;AT MOST, ONLY DISCLOSURE OF STATEMENTS REGARDING THE USE OF FORCE IS APPROPRIATE 18 Plaintiff argues that under Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Ca1.App.4th 1079, 19 1089, the Internal Affairs (“IA”) report concerning the incident in this case can be disclosed, if 20 the opinions and conclusions of the investigating officer are redacted from the report. In 21 Haggerty, the court held the well-settled and customary limit in case law on only disclosing 22 nar'nes, addresses, and felephone numbers of other complainants may not be applicable in every 23 civil suit in which the plaintiff seeks discovery of the IA report 0n the incident underlying the 24 lawsuit. Part of the court’s feasoning was that statements in the IA report could be used to 25 impeach the officer. (161.)Here, the‘re isnothing to impeach because the video shows what 26' occurred and there is.no factual dispute becfius‘e of both the Video and plaintiff‘s lack of recall. 27 ‘ Therefore, the veracity issue that was key in Haggerty is absent from this case. 28 6 CiTY’s OPPOS. To PITCHESS MOTION - N0. 18 CIV 03280 Further, the Haggerty court was careful to state, “our holding in this caselldoes not mean that law enforcement internal invesfigation reports of the incident at issue in a lawsuit must be routinely disclosed. The court in each case must make an initial finding that the requested mp‘ww ‘ information ismaterial, and after reviewing the information at an in camera hearing.” (117 Ca1.App.4th 1091 .) This cautionary text supports a finding that even if plaintiff s counsel’s Declaration could' be considered an adequate basis for a Pitchess motion, only the IA statements by Officer McAlindon and any witness t0 his use of force would be discoverable, not the entire \OOOQQ IA report. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the City requests the Court deny the motion. If the Court 11 determines there is good cause for the motion, the City requests the Court conduct any review of 12 the officer’s confidential personnel records in camera withOut plaintiff s counsel present as 13 required by law. (Evid. Code 1045(b); People v.Matos (1979) 92 Cal.Aplp.3d 862.) If any 14 discovery is granted, the City requests itbe limited to the names, addresses, and telephone 15 numbers 0f complainants and applicable witnesses. As to the IA report concerning this case, the 16 City requests that if any discovery is ordered, it be limited to the statements by Officer 17 McAlindon and any witness pertaining to what occurred When he arrived and his use of force. 18 Finally, the City requests if any discovery ‘isgranted, the accompanying protective order is 19 issued as required by Evidence Code section 1045(d) and (e). 20 21‘ I Date: May 8, ‘2019 Respectfully submitted: 22 THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW J. OREBIC 23 0;!,aA § A Byrv 24 MATTHE .OREBIC Attorney for Defendant City of East Palo Alto 25 26 27 28 x . 7 r CITY’S OPPOS. TO PITCHESS MOTION - NO. 18 CIV 03280 POS-050IEFS-050 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR No: 124,491 FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME:Matthew J. Orebic Law Office FIRM NAME: of Matthew J. Orebic 1870 San Antonio Ave. STREET ADDRESS: Berkeley CITY: STATE:CA ZIPCODE:94707 TELEPHONE N0; 51 o 540-1 050 FAX No.2n/a Matthew@0rebicLaw.com E—MAIL ADDRESS: ATTORNEY FOR Defendant City of East Palo Alto (name): SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo STREET ADDRESS: 400 County Center 400 County Center MAILING ADDRESS: Redwood City 94063 CITY AND zlP CODE: BRANCH NAME:Southern Branch; Hall of Justice Records CASE NUMBER: 18 CIV 03280 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jose Chavez DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: City of East Palo Alto JUDICIAL OFFICEFf: Law and Motion DEPARTMENT: PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE Law and Motion 1. |am at least18 yearsold. a. My residence or business address is(specify): 1870 San Antonio Avenue Berkeley,CA 94707 b. My electronic service address Is (specify) Matthew@0rebicLaw. com 2- |electronically served the following documents (exact titles): r Defendant City of East Palo Alto's Opposition to Plaintiff's Pitchess Motion; Declaration of Matthew J.Orebic inSupport of Opposition with Exhibit A attached; Proposed Order E The documents served are an attachment. (Form POS—050(D)/EFS-050(D) listed in may be used for this purpose.) 3. l served the documents electronically 2 as follows: listed in a. Name of person served:Nikolaus Reed On behalf of(name or names ofparties represented, ifperson servedisan attorney): Jose Chavez Plaintiff b. Electronic service address 0f person served .' tom@muller-legal.com c. On (date):May 8.2019 D The documents listed in item 2 were served electronically on the persons and (Form POS-050(P)/EFS—050(P) may be used for this purpose.) inthe manner described inan attachment. Date: 5/8/19 ldeclare under penalfy of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoin and correct. . \ Matthew J.Oreb|c > (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 1of1 Form Approved Use for Optional Judicial Council of California PROOF 0F ELECTRONIC SERV|CE Coun, Cal. Rules of 2.251 rule www.courts.ca.gov Pos-osoIEFs-050[Rev. February 2017] 1, (Proof of Service/Electronic Filing and Service)