This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2019 at 13:33:40 (UTC).

JOSE ANGEL LEYBA ET AL VS ANGEL GUILLERMO GRANDES ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/09/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JOSE ANGEL LEYBA against ANGEL GUILLERMO GRANDES in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5772

  • Filing Date:

    05/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

LEYBA RACHEL

LEYBA JOSE ANGEL

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

GRANDES ANGEL GUILLERMO

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

DOES 1 TO 50

Cross Defendant

ROES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WASSERMAN STEVE K. ESQ.

WASSERMAN STEVE KARL ESQ.

Attorney at Wasserman Law Group

5567 Reseda Blvd Ste 330

Tarzana, CA 91356

LEAVITT KARIN R

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SPRIGGS SCOTT B. ESQ.

BROWN MARK A. DEPUTY ATT.GENERAL

SPRIGGS SCOTT B.

SPRIGGS SCOTT BRIAN ESQ.

BROWN MARK ASHLEY

BROWN MARK A.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SPRIGGS SCOTT B.

 

Court Documents

Answer

9/4/2019: Answer

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO TAC FILED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8/13/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO TAC FILED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

7/25/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Order - ORDER RULING ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING

4/4/2019: Order - ORDER RULING ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/25/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Case Management Statement

2/28/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Angel Guillermo Grandes...)

3/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Angel Guillermo Grandes...)

Cross-Complaint

7/9/2018: Cross-Complaint

Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Motion for Order Compelling

1/14/2019: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Motion for Order Compelling

Answer - ANGEL GUILLERMO GRANDES ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/24/2018: Answer - ANGEL GUILLERMO GRANDES ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Reply - State of California's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer to First and Second Causes of Action to Second Amended Complaint

11/5/2018: Reply - State of California's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer to First and Second Causes of Action to Second Amended Complaint

Notice - Notice of court order to transfer

11/15/2018: Notice - Notice of court order to transfer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Resv. #181005...)

11/13/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Resv. #181005...)

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/28/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/24/2018: STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION TO COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF MARK BROWN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

6/1/2018: STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION TO COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF MARK BROWN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -

6/5/2018: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -

Answer -

7/9/2018: Answer -

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/26/2020
  • Hearing05/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2020
  • Hearing05/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • Hearing01/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Hearing on Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by California Highway Patrol (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by California Highway Patrol (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of California Highway Patrol Officer Shayne Bernhard in Support of California's Motion for Summary Judgement); Filed by California Highway Patrol (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Subpoenas Issued by Defendant Angel Guillermo Grandes) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketMotion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion); Filed by California Highway Patrol (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
111 More Docket Entries
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jose Angel Leyba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by California Highway Patrol (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketSTATE OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION TO COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF MARK BROWN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Angel Leyba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF JOSE ANGEL LEYBA'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Angel Leyba (Plaintiff); Rachel Leyba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF RACHEL LEYBA'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705772    Hearing Date: February 03, 2020    Dept: O

ANALYSIS

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery of peace officer’s personnel records is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ objection are OVERRULED.

Evidence Code § 1043(b) provides that a Pitchess motion must include the following: a description of the type of records or information sought (Evid. Code § 1043(b)(2)); and affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records (Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3)).

In order to establish "good cause," the moving party must: (1) request the information "with adequate specificity to preclude the possibility that the defendant is engaging in a 'fishing expedition,' "; and (2) provide "a specific factual scenario" establishing a "plausible factual foundation" for the allegations of misconduct in the case to allow the trial court to assess whether the information sought is relevant to the pending case. (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 85-86; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1146-1147.)

Showing of good cause under Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3), which is measured by ''relatively relaxed standards that serve to insure the production for trial court review of all potentially relevant documents,'' to obtain in-chambers review of relevant documents or information in personnel records of police officer accused of misconduct against defendant, requires only that defendant demonstrate that scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred. (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016.)

A motion for discovery may be denied solely on the basis that it is too broad. (People v. Serrata (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 9, 16.) The court may not order disclosure of complaints against the officer for conduct occurring more than 5 years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation (Evid. Code § 1045(b)(1); see City of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (Brandon) (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 12); the personnel records of officers not present at the time of the arrest (or conduct alleged to have occurred within a jail) or who have had no contact with the party seeking disclosure; (Evid. Code § 1047); and an officer's opinions concerning an investigation (Haggerty v. Sup. Ct. (Guindazola) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1088-1089).

Plaintiffs Jose Leyba and Rachel Leyba (“Plaintiffs”) seek the personnel record of Officer S. Bernhard (Officer # 20813) (“Officer Bernhard”) and I. Vivas (Officer # 21143) (“Officer Vivas”) from Defendant California Highway Patrol (“Defendant”) not only with respect to the traffic break at issue in this case that took place on May 22, 2017 but also all traffic breaks the officers conducted since June 1, 2012 and any related training. Plaintiffs further seek reports of “disciplinary actions” concerning their operation of a motor vehicle and “any job description contained within the personnel files[.]”

The Court finds Plaintiffs failed to establish good cause for the request. While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant’s arguments regarding the admissibility of the records at trial versus whether these items are discoverable, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a plausible factual foundation for any alleged officer misconduct to warrant the discovery of these officers’ files. Furthermore, Plaintiffs fail to explain why they need all records of traffic breaks the officers conducted since June 1, 2012 and what relevance that information would have on the traffic break that took place on May 22, 2017. The Court also finds that the request for job descriptions contained within the personnel files of the officers is overbroad.

Motion is DENIED.

2. Defendant California Highway Patrol’s motion for production of evidence pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 1043 and 1045 is DENIED.

Evidence Code § 1043(b) provides that a Pitchess motion must include the following: a description of the type of records or information sought (Evid. Code § 1043(b)(2)); and affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records (Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3)).

In order to establish "good cause," the moving party must: (1) request the information "with adequate specificity to preclude the possibility that the defendant is engaging in a 'fishing expedition,' "; and (2) provide "a specific factual scenario" establishing a "plausible factual foundation" for the allegations of misconduct in the case to allow the trial court to assess whether the information sought is relevant to the pending case. (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 85-86; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1146-1147.)

Showing of good cause under Evidence Code section 1043(b)(3), which is measured by ''relatively relaxed standards that serve to insure the production for trial court review of all potentially relevant documents,'' to obtain in-chambers review of relevant documents or information in personnel records of police officer accused of misconduct against defendant, requires only that defendant demonstrate that scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred. (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016.)

A motion for discovery may be denied solely on the basis that it is too broad. (People v. Serrata (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 9, 16.) The court may not order disclosure of complaints against the officer for conduct occurring more than 5 years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation (Evid. Code § 1045(b)(1); see City of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (Brandon) (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 12); the personnel records of officers not present at the time of the arrest (or conduct alleged to have occurred within a jail) or who have had no contact with the party seeking disclosure; (Evid. Code § 1047); and an officer's opinions concerning an investigation (Haggerty v. Sup. Ct. (Guindazola) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1088-1089).

Defendant seeks the personnel record of Plaintiff Jose Leyba (“Plaintiff J. Leyba”), who is or was employed with non-party Los Angeles Police Department. Defendant seeks not only personnel files of Plaintiff J. Leyba with respect to the traffic accident on May 22, 2017, but also what appears to be a request for Plaintiff J. Leyba’s personnel files in its entirety.

The Court finds Defendant failed to establish good cause for the request. Defendant has not demonstrated a plausible factual foundation for any alleged officer misconduct to warrant the discovery of these officers’ files. Furthermore, the Court finds that the request for items such as Plaintiff J. Leyba’s W-2 Wage and Tax Statements, payroll records, and item of correspondence are overbroad.

Motion is DENIED.