This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/09/2020 at 03:55:43 (UTC).

STEFANIE ALCOCER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 03/20/2017 STEFANIE ALCOCER filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD FRUIN and RICHARD L. FRUIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4793

  • Filing Date:

    03/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD FRUIN

RICHARD L. FRUIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Appellants

ALCOCER STEFANIE

ESNER CHANG & BOYER

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 100

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

ESNER CHANG & BOYER

DYRNESS TRACY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MCNICHOLAS MATTHEW S. ESQ.

MCNICHOLAS COURTNEY C.

WINTER DOUGLAS D.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GALAS JENNA B.

LYON DOUGLAS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

LYON DOUGLAS

 

Court Documents

Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript - APPEAL - NOTICE COURT REPORTER TO PREPARE APPEAL TRANSCRIPT ;B296880;

6/17/2019: Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript - APPEAL - NOTICE COURT REPORTER TO PREPARE APPEAL TRANSCRIPT ;B296880;

Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - NOTICE OF DEFAULT

5/8/2019: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

4/19/2019: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

4/5/2019: Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

4/12/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL AND APPEARANCE

3/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL AND APPEARANCE

Declaration - Declaration of Douglas Lyon Opposing Plaintiff Stefanie Alcocer's Ex Part Application to File Another Pitchess Motion, and to Shorten Time to Compel Depositions of Alleged Percipient Wit

1/23/2019: Declaration - Declaration of Douglas Lyon Opposing Plaintiff Stefanie Alcocer's Ex Part Application to File Another Pitchess Motion, and to Shorten Time to Compel Depositions of Alleged Percipient Wit

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

3/11/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Judgment - Judgment - Summary Judgment - Before Trial - 02/20/2019 entered, plaintiff to take nothing by virtue of the complaint.

2/20/2019: Judgment - Judgment - Summary Judgment - Before Trial - 02/20/2019 entered, plaintiff to take nothing by virtue of the complaint.

Order - Order on Defts; Objections to Evidence Submitted by Plff in Opp to M.S.J.

1/30/2019: Order - Order on Defts; Objections to Evidence Submitted by Plff in Opp to M.S.J.

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore re Deborah Stough, 8925

1/23/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore re Deborah Stough, 8925

Order - Order : Ruling Granting L.A. City M.S.J. and Taking Off Calendar/Denying Plff's 1-23-19 Ex-Parte Appl; for O.S.T. re Pitchess Motion

1/24/2019: Order - Order : Ruling Granting L.A. City M.S.J. and Taking Off Calendar/Denying Plff's 1-23-19 Ex-Parte Appl; for O.S.T. re Pitchess Motion

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore re Tracy Dyrness, 12323

1/24/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore re Tracy Dyrness, 12323

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Under Submission After Rulin...) of 01/30/2019 and Order on Evidentiary Objections

1/30/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Under Submission After Rulin...) of 01/30/2019 and Order on Evidentiary Objections

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Under Submission After Rulin...)

1/30/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Under Submission After Rulin...)

Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion)

1/23/2019: Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Motion of Deft City of L.A. for Summary Judgment [18011228138...)

1/24/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Motion of Deft City of L.A. for Summary Judgment [18011228138...)

Notice of Ruling

1/24/2019: Notice of Ruling

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketAppeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript (;B296880;); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid; Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Plaintiff); ESNER CHANG & BOYER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • DocketNotice (OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL AND APPEARANCE); Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 15, Richard L. Fruin, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
104 More Docket Entries
  • 04/17/2017
  • DocketDefendant City of Los Angeles' Answer to Plaintiff Stefanie Alcocer's Complaint for Damages; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF STEFANIE ALCOCER'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (CAL. GOV'T CODE 12940 ET SEQ.) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketReceipt - Civil Deposit Slip - Initial Jury Fee Deposit; Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2017
  • DocketComplaint (for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial); Filed by Stefanie Alcocer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC654793 Hearing Date: July 23, 2021 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

\r\n\r\n

Calendar No.

\r\n\r\n

Date: 07/23/2021

\r\n\r\n

Alcocer vs. City\r\nof Los Angeles, et. al., Case\r\nNo. BC654793

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tentative Ruling\r\nre: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel\r\nDiscovery

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling\r\nthe custodian of records for the City of Los Angeles (the City) to\r\nproduce personnel documents of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for the\r\nCourt to review in chambers. The motion is granted.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party in a civil proceeding may\r\ngain access to police officer records and citizen complaint records through the\r\nprocedures established in Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045. (See Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117\r\nCal.App.4th 1079, 1085 (Haggerty).)

\r\n\r\n

Evidence Code section 1043 requires\r\na written motion and notice to the governmental agency which has custody of the\r\nrecords sought, and affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or\r\ndisclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter\r\ninvolved in the pending litigation. It further states that no hearing for a\r\ndiscovery motion shall be held without full compliance except upon a showing of\r\ngood cause for noncompliance or a waiver by the governmental agency with\r\ncustody of the records. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (d).) Once good cause is\r\nestablished, Evidence Code section 1045 provides that the court must then\r\nexamine the information in chambers in conformity with Evidence Code section 915\r\nand shall exclude from disclosure information consisting of complaints\r\nconcerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or\r\ntransaction that is the subject of the litigation. (Evid. Code, § 1045.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The question before the Court is\r\nwhether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause and set forth the materiality of\r\nthe discovery sought. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) This initial burden\r\nis a “relatively relaxed standard.” (City\r\nof Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84.) Information has\r\nbeen deemed material where it “will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts\r\nand a fair trial” and general allegations which establish some cause for\r\ndiscovery are sufficient. (Id. at pp.\r\n84-85 [citations omitted].) Declarations by counsel on information and belief\r\nare sufficient to show the materiality of the information sought in personnel\r\nfiles. (Abatti v. Superior Court\r\n(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, 59; Warrick v.\r\nSuperior Court (2005) 25 Cal.4th 1011, 1026.)

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff has identified\r\nthree categories of documents sought through this motion: (1) The Internal\r\nAffairs (IA) Complaint Investigations CF # 16-002968 and CF #17-001287; (2) the\r\nletters of transmittal and adjudication as to CF # 16-002968 and CF #17-001287;\r\nand (3) the TEAMS Reports for supervisors Capt. Kathryn Meek (Capt. Meek), Lt.\r\nRick Smith (Lt. Smith), Sgt. Mike Salinaz (Sgt. Salinaz), and the TEAM Report\r\nfor her co-worker and alleged harasser Harry Lathrop (Lathrop).

\r\n\r\n

In addition to the issues framed by\r\nthe allegations of the complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration\r\nshowing good cause for the discovery sought. Plaintiff has shown that the\r\ninformation sought is material. Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that her co-worker,\r\na fellow employee of the City, sexually harassed her to the point of creating a\r\nhostile work environment. When she informed her supervisors of the harassment\r\nno action was taken to cure the hostile work environment.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Under the FEHA, an employer is\r\nliable for harassment by a nonsupervisory employee only if the employer (a)\r\nknew or should have known of the harassing conduct and (b) failed to take\r\nimmediate and appropriate corrective action. (State Dept. of Health Services\r\nv. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040-1041.) Employers have an\r\naffirmative duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct\r\ndiscriminatory and harassing conduct. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (k).) In\r\naddition, “when an employer receives allegations of misconduct, it will conduct\r\na fair, timely, and thorough investigation.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11023,\r\nsubd. (b)(7).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Each of the records sought here\r\nrelates to the internal investigations done by the City’s employees and\r\nPlaintiff’s supervisors, whether the City was diligent in taking appropriate\r\ncorrective action, and why the City either did or did not appropriately\r\ninvestigate Plaintiff’s claims. (See McNicholas Decl., ¶¶ 28-37.) In Haggerty,\r\nsupra, the court held that the “relevancy of an investigation of the\r\nincident that is the basis for the lawsuit is ‘self-evident.’” (Haggerty,\r\nsupra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 1087 [quoting Robinson v. Superior\r\nCourt (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 968, 977].)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff has demonstrated a\r\nplausible factual scenario showing good cause. Plaintiff alleges that she began\r\ncomplaining that her co-worker, Lathrop, was sexually harassing her in June\r\n2016. (Complaint ¶ 27; McNicholas Decl., ¶ 4.) From June to December 2016,\r\nPlaintiff made numerous complaints to multiple supervisors, and yet no real\r\ncorrective action was taken. (Complaint ¶¶ 27-52; McNicholas Decl., ¶¶ 5-20.)\r\nThus, the records Plaintiff seeks on this motion are directly relevant to\r\nwhether the City knew of the harassing conduct and whether the City, through\r\nits supervisory personnel, took appropriate corrective action.

\r\n\r\n

The evidence may be admissible\r\nbased on the above and because the City has asserted as affirmative defenses in\r\nits answer that it acted appropriately and that it corrected the harassing\r\nconduct. (McNicholas Decl., ¶¶ 38-39; see also Answer at p. 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In its late-filed opposition, the\r\nCity argues, without citing any authority, that the information Plaintiff seeks\r\nis not material because the hostile work environment existed before the IA reports\r\nand because they contain hearsay. (Opposition at pp. 3-4.) It does not matter\r\nif the reports might contain hearsay. The relevant inquiry is whether “the\r\nevidence sought is admissible or may lead to discovery of admissible evidence.”\r\n(Richardson v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1040, 1048–1049.) The standards\r\nfor discovery under Evidence Code section 1043 are “relatively relaxed,” and\r\nthe statute creates “a relatively low threshold for discovery.” (Riske v.\r\nSuperior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655 (Riske).)

\r\n\r\n

The City argues that CF #17-001287\r\nfocuses on allegations against unnamed supervisors for discrimination and\r\nretaliation, and not sexual harassment. The City cites no evidence and provides\r\nno support for this claim.

\r\n\r\n

Further,\r\nthe City argues that the motion is not tailored sufficiently. However,\r\nPlaintiff has limited her request to specific people and the investigation\r\nrecords related only to her complaints against Lathrop.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The City also argues that the TEAM\r\nReports of Meek, Smith, and Salinaz are not relevant to Plaintiff’s sole\r\nremaining claim for harassment because they are not defendants and because they\r\nare not accused of harassment. The Court of Appeal has expressly rejected this\r\nargument. In Riske, supra, the Court of Appeal held that the fact\r\nthat officers whose records were sought did not participate in or witness the conduct\r\nalleged to have caused the officer’s injuries did not preclude discovery of\r\nrecords pursuant to a Pitchess motion. (Id. at pp. 658-659.) The\r\ndispositive question was simply whether the records sought were material to the\r\ncase. (Id. at p. 659.) As stated above, that is a “relatively low\r\nthreshold for discovery,” which Plaintiff has met. (Id. at p. 655.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The City is ordered to produce the documents sought by Plaintiff within ten\r\n(10) days for review by the Court in chambers. At that review, the Court will\r\ndetermine what information is relevant and what information the City should be\r\nrequired to produce.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ESNER CHANG & BOYER is a litigant