Pitchess Motion
CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0204924 Tentative Ruling on Pitchess Motion: Defendant City of Redding filed a Motion for Disclosure of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess) seeking records from the County of Siskiyou regarding Plaintiff September Wynhoff. The Proof of Service attached to the motion indicates electronic service on four individuals with County of Siskiyou email addresses. The County of Siskiyou has appeared in this matter for a previous Pitchess motion and has been consistently represented by James R.
Ross from Renne Public Law Group. Renne Public Law Group first appeared in a stipulation filed July 16, 2025 regarding the previous Pitchess motion and Renne Public Law Group has represented the County of Siskiyou throughout the entire previous Pitchess motion, including filing the Opposition, attending the hearing, attending the in camera review, and providing responsive records to the court. Nothing has been filed to indicate that Renne Public Law Group is no longer representing the County of Siskiyou.
Siskiyou County Counsel has never appeared in this action on behalf of the County of Siskiyou.
Defendant City of Redding is again seeking records from the County of Siskiyou, but did not serve Renne Public Law Group. No Opposition to the motion has been filed. Where a party has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers must be upon the attorney instead of the party. CCP § 1015. Without proper service on the County of Siskiyou and there being no Opposition on file, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. Should Defendant City of Redding prefer a continuance of the hearing date in order to properly serve the County of Siskiyou through counsel of record, counsel may appear at the hearing to request a new hearing date. Otherwise, the Court will modify the proposed Order submitted by the City of Redding.
YATES VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
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?”