Motion for Judgment on Verified Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
When Plaintiff discovered the conditions of the property in 2020, he was necessarily aware at that time that Defendants (allegedly) broke their promises to maintain the property in good condition. Unlike the previous causes of action where the misrepresentations and concealment did not occur until later and/or could not (arguably) be discovered until later, Plaintiff cannot reasonably allege that discovery of the general conditions of the property did not occur until after September 2020. The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants shall file an answer within 20 days’ notice of this order. The Court will prepare the order.
6. 25CV05119 Waddell, David L v. Ramsey, Michael L et al
EVENT: Motion for Judgment on Verified Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Preliminarily, with respect to Petitioner’s request for declaratory relief that the California Public Records Act was violated because records were not provided timely pursuant to Penal Code 832.7(b)(11), the Court declines granting the request at this time. Such relief may be appropriate where there is some likelihood of the violation recurring, see City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2026) 19 Cal.5th 38, 54. To this Court’s knowledge, it has rarely (if ever) been presented with similar petitions alleging untimeliness. Based on that track record the Court does not have evidence that this will likely recur at this stage.
Records Requests to the Sheriff’s Office Sampson Incident This incident involves law enforcement’s use of force which resulted in gunshot wounds. The first issue in dispute is whether the Sheriff is authorized to redact the individual’s genitalia, buttocks, and gun-shot wounds. As to genitalia, buttocks, and wounds, those subjects implicate the highest degree of privacy possible. Under PC 832.7(b)(6)(C), these privacy invasions would “clearly outweigh[s] the strong public interest in records about possible misconduct ...”
Separately, the Sheriff states it has redacted only the identities of percipient witnesses (which include officers who were percipient witnesses) pursuant to PC 832.7(b)(6)(B). The plain language of PC 832.7(b)(6)(B) suggests all witnesses, whether officer or otherwise, are subject to redaction. (City of Vallejo v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 565, 600
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
However, PC 832.7(i) provides: Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the public’s right of access as provided for in Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59. Long Beach, supra at p. 73: Moreover, when it comes to the disclosure of a peace officer's name, the public's substantial interest in the conduct of its peace officers outweighs, in most cases, the officer's personal privacy interest. Long Beach involved a request to identify the names of (2) officers involved in an officer involved shooting. Long Beach appears to stand for the proposition that such disclosure is generally permitted unless there is an on-going officer investigation. As it appears there is no on-going investigation as to this incident, the officers’ names shall not be redacted.
The McCarty Incident The Sheriff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of case no. 24CF01835 in which the individual involved in this incident is a defendant. According to Court records a jury trial is scheduled for September 28, 2026. As a result, the Sheriff is authorized to withhold these records pursuant to PC 832.7(b)(8)(B). Further, as it pertains to the protective order, one trial judge cannot overrule another trial judge’s ruling. (See Paul Blanco's Good Car Co. Auto Group v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 86, 99) That’s what we would essentially be doing if we vacated the protective order.
Cadwallader Shooting With respect to this matter, the Sheriff has indicated it will be providing redacted records prior to the hearing. As a result, the motion is continued regarding this specific matter to June 17, 2026 at 9:00am. If Petitioner so desires, he shall file a supplemental brief no later than May 21, 2026. The Sheriff’s supplemental brief will be due no later than June 3, 2026.
Record Requests to the District Attorney The Safeway Shooting The Court will hear form counsel re: status of records.
5|Page
The Oxley and Cadwallader Incidents The Court finds the District Attorney has met its burden under Penal Code section 832.7(b)(8)(A)(ii) demonstrating that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding. Thus, with respect to the District Attorney, the Petition is denied as to the Oxley and Cadwallader incidents.
Record Requests to the City According to the City, the only records that have been withheld are those identified by the District Attorney pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7(b)(8)(A)(ii) demonstrating that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding. As the Court has found this withholding is authorized, the City’s withholding is likewise authorized. Regarding records that have been produced with redactions, the City states it has redacted witness information including officer involved witnesses.
As noted, Long Beach, supra, stands for the proposition that disclosure of officer names involved in shootings is generally permitted unless there is an on-going officer investigation. According to the City there is an on-going officer investigation, therefore redaction of officer identifying information is appropriate. As to redactions of the wounds, consistent with the Court’s previous ruling, such subject matter invokes the highest degree of privacy and is therefore subject to redaction.
6|Page