CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

Category 2: personnel records and information of Peace Officers AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE, whose religious accommodation requests for beards CHP asserts informed its handling of the Sandhu and Bhangal’s beard requests, specifically:

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

• Item 2(a): Documents comprising and directly related to Peace Officers AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE’s religious accommodation requests for beards, including: o documents demonstrating the exploration of any available reasonable means of accommodating the officers; o documents informing CHP’s denials of their requests; and o documents demonstrating undue hardship.

• Item 2(b): Documents discussing, considering, evaluating, or analyzing any of those religious accommodation requests.

Category 3: personnel records and information of Peace Officers who submitted religious accommodation requests for beards to CHP between January 1, 2019, and the present, specifically:

• Item 3(a): Documents comprising and directly related to their religious accommodation requests for beards, including:

o documents demonstrating the exploration of any available reasonable means of accommodating the Peace Officers; o documents informing CHP’s denials of their requests; and o documents demonstrating undue hardship.

• Item 3(b): Documents discussing, considering, evaluating, or analyzing any of those religious accommodation requests.

Category 4: personnel records and information, between January 1, 2019, and the present, related to CHP’s officer safety rationale, specifically:

• Item 4(a): The Cal/OSHA Forms 300 and 301, or any equivalent forms, reporting Peace Officer injuries or illnesses resulting from:

o any type of close-quarters combat, physical altercation, or fight involving a suspect or member of the public grabbing the Peace Officer’s hair or uniform; or o the Peace Officer’s non-COVID-19-related respiratory-condition injury or illness, including:  any respiratory-condition injury or illness resulting from wildfires resulting from the failure to use or the inadequate use of a respirator;  any respiratory-condition injury or illness resulting from vehicle fires resulting from the failure to use or the inadequate use of a respirator;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

 any respiratory-condition injury or illness resulting from hazardous materials incidents resulting from the failure to use or the inadequate use of a respirator;  any respiratory-condition injury or illness resulting from civil disturbances resulting from the failure to use or the inadequate use of a respirator;  any respiratory-condition injury or illness resulting from exposure to chemical agent munitions resulting from the failure to use or the inadequate use of a respirator; or  any respiratory-condition injury or illness resulting from the failure to use or the inadequate use of a respirator.

Category 5: personnel records and information, between January 1, 2019, and the present, related to certain discipline, specifically:

Item 5(a): Discipline received by any Peace Officer directly related to respirators, including:

o discipline for failing to have their respirator readily available; o discipline for failing to maintain their respirator; o discipline for failing to use or properly use their respirator; or o discipline for not complying with Management Memorandum No. 24-063.

For the Peace Officers whose personnel records are included within Categories 2 through 5 (i.e., Items 2(c), 3(c), 4(b), and 5(b)), CRD requests their names and contact information, including last known addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.

For the Peace Officers whose personnel records are included within Categories 2 through 4 (i.e., Items 2(d), 3(d), 4(c)), CRD also requests respirator-related recommendations and medical documentation mandated by Cal/OSHA regulation, California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5144.

(Motion, 2:16-5:22.)

CRD’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

CRD is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” The electronic bookmarks in the Declaration of Matthew Turnbull do not have links to the first page of each exhibit. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

II.

Legal Standard

Evidence Code section 1043[3] provides, in pertinent part:

(a) In any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records, as follows:

(1) In a civil action, the written notice shall be given at the times prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

...

(b) The motion shall include all of the following:

(1) Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party seeking discovery or disclosure, the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought, the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard.

(2) A description of the type of records or information sought.

(3) 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.

(c) Upon receipt of a notice served pursuant to subdivision (a), the governmental agency shall immediately notify the individual whose records are sought.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

(d) No hearing upon a motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with the notice provisions of this section except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for noncompliance, or upon a waiver of the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having the records.

Section 1045 provides certain limitations on the disclosure of records:

(a) This article does not affect the right of access to records of complaints, or investigations of complaints, or discipline imposed as a result of those investigations, concerning an event or transaction in which the peace officer or custodial officer, as defined in Section 831.5 of the Penal Code, participated, or which the officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the officer performed the officer’s duties, provided that information is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.

(b) In determining relevance, the court shall examine the information in chambers in conformity with Section 915, and shall exclude from disclosure both of the following:

(1) In any criminal proceeding the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

(2) Facts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.

(c) In determining relevance where the issue in litigation concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency, the court shall consider whether the information sought may be obtained from other records maintained by the employing agency in the regular course of agency business which would not necessitate the disclosure of individual personnel records.

Courts have determined the requirement for showing good cause is a “relatively low threshold” that is offset by the protective provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1045. (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.App.3d 74, 83.) To demonstrate good cause, the party need only show the information requested is material to the subject matter of the pending litigation and a reasonable belief that the government agency has the type of information requested. (Ibid.) The materiality of the information may be shown by a declaration of counsel. (People v.

Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 683.) While the declaration may be based on information and belief and not personal knowledge, “the information sought must be requested with sufficient specificity to preclude the possibility of a [party seeking disclosure] simply casting about for any helpful information.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

In a criminal case, the California Supreme Court articulated the process as follows:

To determine whether the defendant has established good cause for in-chambers review of an officer’s personnel records, the trial court looks to whether the defendant has established the materiality of the requested information to the pending litigation. The court does that through the following inquiry: Has the defense shown a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense? Is the defense request for Pitchess discovery factually specific and tailored to support its claim of officer misconduct?

Will the requested Pitchess discovery support the proposed defense, or is it likely to lead to information that would support the proposed defense? Under what theory would the requested information be admissible at trial? If defense counsel’s affidavit in support of the Pitchess motion adequately responds to these questions, and states ‘upon reasonable belief the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records’ (§ 1043, subd. (b)(3)), then the defendant has shown good cause for discovery and in-chambers review of potentially relevant personnel records of the police officer accused of misconduct against the defendant.

(Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026-1027.)

III. Compliance with Section 1043

Section 1043(b)(1) requires that the motion identify “the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought.” In the case at bar, for Category No. 2, CRD identifies Peace Officers AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE.[4] For Category Nos. 3-5, CRD fails to identify any specific peace officer.

According to CRD, pursuant to Section 1043(d), “good cause exists for the hearing to proceed, without CRD identifying the Peace Officers whose personnel records are sought, because it is impossible for CRD to obtain the names of the affected Peace Officers except through a Pitchess motion.” (Motion, 11:8-10.) CRD further contends its inability to provide the identities should be excused because CHP should be able to notify the Peace Officers without delay. It explains that:

CHP was required to gather the names of each Category-2 Peace Officer whose personnel records are responsive to CRD’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to adequately respond to those requests and log each document as privileged. And, in October 2025, CRD put CHP on notice that it would be requesting the documents and information detailed in Categories 3 through 5 as part of this Pitchess motion. (See Turnbull Decl., ¶ 11.) Therefore, CHP does not need CRD to provide the names of the Peace Officers whose records are implicated by this motion; CHP already has them—or has already had the means

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

and opportunity to have them—and CHP’s efforts to notify those Peace Officers of this motion are not hindered by CRD’s inability to name each of those Peace Officers.

(Motion, 11:20-28.)

CHP argues in passing in the introduction section of its opposition that CRD has not complied with Section 1043, because CRD “advances sweeping category-based requests that would require CHP to search broadly for potential officers and records,” and that the cases upon which CRD relies are “not factually similar and should be given no weight.” (Opposition, 5:10-11, 5:28, fn. 2.)

The Court finds that CRD has shown good cause as to why it is unable to identify the Peace Officers whose records it seeks. As will be discussed below, the Court also finds that CRD has shown good cause for an in camera review of most of the categories of documents requested.

IV. Category No. 2

The Court finds that CRD’s counsel’s declaration provides good cause for the requested documents.

CRD’s counsel states, in pertinent part:

15. CHP “relied on previous analysis and research regarding alternatives and accommodations in reaching a decision on . . . [Officers Sandhu and Bhangal’s] requests.” (Declaration of Mike Alvarez in support of Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed Aug. 14, 2025 (“Alvarez Decl.”), ¶ 17; see also Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed Aug. 14, 2025 (“CHP Opp.”), p. 16.) In sworn discovery responses served on October 14, 2025, CHP identified documents related to Peace Officers AA–EE’s religious accommodation requests for beards as relevant to its denial of the requests submitted by Officers Sandhu and Bhangal.

16. All documents pertaining to the religious accommodations sought by Officers AA EE, including those discussing, considering, evaluating, or analyzing those religious accommodation requests (i.e., the “secondary-layer” documents about their requests), have direct relevance to CRD’s claims in this litigation. Although CRD received a redacted version of some records related to Peace Officers AA– EE (omitting name, personally identifiable information, and content over which CHP invoked other privileges, such as attorney-client, and work-product protection) during its administrative investigation, this motion seeks the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

unredacted, complete religious-accommodation personnel records for Peace Officers AA–EE (or less-redacted versions of the record should the Court, during in camera review, agree that any other privileges or protections inhere to any parts of the personnel records). The records will ensure CRD has critical information regarding its allegation that CHP didn’t adequately consider or properly analyze Officers Sandu [sic] and Bhangal’s religious accommodation requests, and to assess CHP’s corresponding defense to the contrary. Having the complete records will also enable CRD to identify all percipient witnesses and material facts as well as facilitate the presentation of evidence at trial.

(Turnbull Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.)

CHP’s opposition does not expressly address Category No.

2. Indeed, CHP appears to concede that the requested records are directly relevant. (See Opposition, 14:2-4 [stating in connection with Category No. 3, “yet CRD never explains why records for officers other than BB-EE – or those requests CHP contends influenced the denial of Officers Sandhu and Bhangal’s requests – have any legitimate relevance here.”)] CHP argues that the requests seek highly personal religious information. A stipulated protective order will lessen CHP’s concerns.

CRD cites to Haggerty v. Superior Court (“Haggerty”) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079 to support its request for “secondary-layer” documents. CHP argues that Haggerty is distinguishable, and the request is “impermissibly vague, sweeping in undefined categories such as ‘any research, fact-finding and internal correspondence.’” (Opposition, 14:5-6.)

Relying on City of Azusa v. Superior Court (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 693, Carruthers v. Municipal Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 439 and Kelvin L. v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823, CHP contends “that disclosure of substantive statements or investigative materials at the initial stage is premature. Only if the information obtained – i.e., names and contact information – proves inadequate may a party seek further discovery.” (Opposition, 17:7-9.) Therefore, CHP suggests that the Court should only disclose the names and contact information of any relevant complainants or witnesses.

Haggerty concerned an excessive force civil action against a sheriff’s deputy. The trial court ordered the Sheriff’s Department to disclose an internal investigation report of the incident underlying the plaintiff’s complaint. The court of appeal found that the internal investigation file, with the exception of portions of an internal affairs report in which the investigating officer stated his analysis and conclusions regarding the incident, was relevant to the issue in the lawsuit. (Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1088.) The deputy argued, in part, that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain a copy of the report because “he did not establish that the disclosure of witness identifying information would be insufficient to permit [the plaintiff] to conduct his own discovery.” (Id. at 1089.) The court found the argument unavailing because “the trial court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

specifically found the disclosure of the witness identities would not provide [the plaintiff] with the substance of the relevant information found in the report.” (Ibid.)

The cases upon which CHP relies are also inapposite because they concerned a criminal defendant’s claims of excessive force by the arresting officer, where the purpose of the Pitchess motion was to prove the arresting officers’ propensities for excessive force through other complaints against them.

However, the issue is not whether the Pitchess motion should be granted, but rather what the Court should disclose to the CRD. Ultimately, the Court must determine whether disclosing witness identities and contact information would provide CRD with the substance of the relevant information in the requested documents.

The Court disagrees with CHP that the request is vague, overbroad or sweeping.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CRD’s motion with respect to Category No. 2, and will conduct an in camera review of Category No. 2 documents. [5]

V. Category No. 3

CRD contends that CHP denied the request for religious accommodation categorically, without any regard to the particular factual context, as such, documents related to other Peace Officer’s religious accommodation requests “will provide insight into CHP’s processing of requests for beards over time and across the agency.” (Turnbull Decl., ¶ 18.) CRD explains:

CHP’s accounting for variables, like employee position, desired beard length, evolving technology, changes in the law, or temporal differences (i.e., whether the beard was requested for a limited or indefinite time) in response to those requests is evidence that is central to one of CRD’s allegations—that CHP denied Officers Sandhu and Bhangal’s accommodation requests categorically, without any regard to the particular factual context presented by each of their cases. Additionally, those documents will assist CRD in assessing the scope and nature of ongoing deficiencies in CHP’s handling of religious accommodation requests, which is relevant to its failure-to-prevent claim and request for injunctive relief.

(Ibid.)

CHP argues that the request seeks highly personal religious information. A stipulated protective order will alleviate CHP’s concerns.

CHP again argues that the Court should only disclose the names and contact information of any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

relevant complainants or witnesses. The Court must determine whether the disclosure of witness identities and contact information would provide CRD with the substance of the relevant information found in the requested documents.

The Court finds that CRD’s counsel’s declaration provides good cause for most of the requested documents. However, the Court finds that CRD fails to show good cause for the entirety of the requested documents from January 1, 2019 to the present. CRD provides no explanation as to why documents from January 1, 2019 to the present are material to the subject matter of this litigation. As a result, the Court will limit the production of this category of documents for in camera review to the period of January 1, 2020 to February 19, 2025 (the date CRD filed its complaint).

With the exception of the time period, the Court disagrees with CHP that the request is vague, overbroad and sweeping.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CRD’s motion with respect to Category No. 3, and will conduct an in camera review of Category No. 3 documents for the period of January 1, 2020 to February 19, 2025.

VI. Category No. 4

CRD’s counsel states:

20. CHP’s undue hardship defense rests on two types of safety risks allegedly posed by a peace officer having a beard: (1) the beard could be “grab[bed] onto . . . and can be used as leverage against the officer’ in ‘close-quarters altercation[s]’ or ‘close combat situations.’ (CHP Opp[osition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction]., pp. 7:18, 22:6, 30:11–13); and (2) facial hair ‘compromises the seal of chemical protective masks/gas masks, prevent[ing][] a proper gas-tight seal, and creates a potential for leakage of hazardous particles which can cause negative effects all the way from mild irritation to death” (Morris Decl., ¶ 6.)

CHP alleges that respiratory injury or illness could occur as a result of peace officers responding to wildfires (Morris Decl., ¶ 17), vehicle fires (id., ¶¶ 7, 13), hazardous materials events (id., ¶¶ 7, 15–16), and civil disturbances (id., ¶¶ 11, 14) without using or properly using a respirator.

21. Personnel records reflecting Peace Officers’ work-related injury or illness resulting from any type of close-quarters combat, physical altercation, or fight involving a suspect or member of the public grabbing the Peace Officer’s body, hair, or uniform are necessary for CRD’s proper preparation of the case for trial. Such documents will allow CRD to test the combat-related pillar of CHP’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

officer-safety undue hardship defense; the documents will reveal the extent to which the defense is demonstrable and based on actual evidence, and if so, the nature of that evidence. That evidence is critical for both fact discovery and expert discovery.

22. This is equally true of any work-related respiratory injuries or illnesses that are subject to specific Cal/OSHA reporting requirements, in addition to any internal documentation CHP maintains in accordance with its own processes and procedures. Personnel records reflecting Peace Officers’ non-COVID-19-related respiratory-condition injuries or illnesses are also necessary for CRD’s proper preparation of the case for trial. Such documents will allow CRD to test the respirator-related pillar of CHP’s undue hardship defense; the documents will reveal the extent to which the defense is demonstrable and based on actual evidence.

(Turnbull Decl., ¶¶ 20-22.)

CHP argues that the request seeks highly confidential medical information, and pursuant to the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”), “it cannot disclose information protected by the CMIA merely because CRD requested it in discovery.” (Opposition, 12:26-27.) While it is true that the request seeks confidential medical information, the CMIA permits disclosure “if the disclosure is compelled by judicial or administrative process or by any other specific provision of law.” (Civ. Code §56.20(c)(1).) Thus, the CMIA would not appear to be a barrier to disclosure if the Court permits it.

CHP again argues that the Court should only disclose the names and contact information of any relevant complainants or witnesses. The Court must determine whether disclosing witness identities and contact information would provide CRD with the substance of the relevant information in the requested documents.

The Court finds that CRD’s counsel’s declaration provides good cause for most of the requested documents. However, the Court finds that CRD fails to show good cause for the entirety of the requested documents from January 1, 2019 to the present. CRD provides no explanation as to why documents from January 1, 2019 to the present are material to the subject matter of this litigation. As a result, the Court will limit the production of this category of documents for in camera review to the period of January 1, 2020 to February 19, 2025 (the date CRD filed its complaint).

With the exception of the time period, the Court disagrees with CHP that the request is vague, overbroad and sweeping.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CRD’s motion with respect to Category No. 4, and will conduct an in camera review of Category No. 4 documents for the period of January 1, 2020 to February 19, 2025.

VII. Category No. 5

CRD’s counsel explains:

25. CHP’s justification for denying Officers Sandhu and Bhangal’s religious accommodation requests is based on its assertion that “every officer in the state must be immediately available to don a tight-fitting air purifying respirator, no matter where they are assigned.” (CHP Opp., p. 11:8–9; see also Alvarez Decl., ¶¶ 6–8, 10, 20–21, 23–26, 29–30.) However, prior to the issuance of Management Memorandum No. 24-063 on November 1, 2024, CHP did not have a written policy requiring peace officers to carry their respirators with them on normal patrol duties.

26. Documents and information pertaining to respirator-related peace officer discipline disclosure is relevant to CRD’s contention that a universal respirator requirement is not justifiable or necessary and may, in fact, have been implemented as pretext for the beard-accommodation denials. Discipline records regarding respirators will illuminate recent CHP practices around respirators generally and allow CRD to investigate the basis for CHP’s invocation of a universal respirator requirement. It will allow CRD to explore whether CHP enforced a universal respirator requirement before the issuance of Management Memorandum No. 24-063, and it will allow CRD to explore whether CHP has consistently and uniformly enforced a universal respirator requirement.

The documents will also shed light on whether, to what extent, and how CHP is enforcing Management Memorandum No. 24-063. Such records may facilitate CRD’s examination of CHP witnesses.

(Turnbull Decl., ¶¶ 25-26.)

To the extent CHP argues that the request seeks highly confidential medical information pursuant to the CMIA, the CMIA permits disclosure when “compelled by judicial or administrative process or by any other specific provision of law.” (Civ. Code §56.20(c)(1).)

CHP again argues that the Court should only disclose the names and contact information of any relevant complainants or witnesses. The Court must determine whether disclosing witness identities and contact information would provide CRD with the substance of the relevant information in the requested documents.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

The Court finds that CRD’s counsel’s declaration provides good cause for most of the requested documents. However, the Court finds that CRD fails to show good cause for the entirety of the requested documents from January 1, 2019 to the present. CRD provides no explanation as to why documents from January 1, 2019 are material to the subject matter of this litigation. As a result, the Court will limit the production of this category of documents for in camera review to the period of January 1, 2020 to May 12, 2026 (the date of the filing of the motion).

With the exception of the time period, the Court disagrees with CHP that the request is vague, overbroad and sweeping.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CRD’s motion with respect to Category No. 5, and will conduct an in camera review of Category No. 5 documents for the period of January 1, 2020 to May 12, 2026.

VIII. Names and Contact Information (Items 2(c), 3(c), 4(b), and 5(b))

For the Peace Officers whose personnel records are included within Categories 2 through 5 (i.e., Items 2(c), 3(c), 4(b), and 5(b)), CRD requests their names and contact information, including last known addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.

CRD’s counsel states:

The Peace Officers identified in the documents requested through this motion are percipient witnesses to some of the events directly at issue in this trial such that their contact information must be disclosed for CRD to be able to locate and contact them. Beard-requesting witnesses may provide testimonial evidence about their religious accommodation requests, and Peace Officers who experienced certain types of combat-related or respiratory-hazard workplace injuries or respirator-related discipline may have relevant information beyond that contained in their personnel records. The facts gathered directly from the Peace Officers will help CRD assess its allegations and the evidence supporting CHP’s defenses.

(Turnbull Decl., ¶ 29.)

CHP does not appear to oppose this request. To the extent CHP argues that the request implicates highly personal religious information. A stipulated protective order will lessen CHP’s concerns. To the extent CHP argues that the request implicates highly confidential medical information pursuant to the CMIA, the CMIA permits disclosure when “compelled by judicial or administrative process or by any other specific provision of law.” (Civ. Code §56.20(c)(1).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

The Court finds that CRD’s counsel’s declaration provides good cause for the requested information. After the Court’s in camera review, the Court will order CHP to produce the names and contact information, including last known addresses, phone numbers, and email address, for the Peace Officers whose personnel records are included within Categories 2 through 5 (i.e., Items 2(c), 3(c), 4(b), and 5(b)).

IX. Respirator-Related Recommendations and Medical Documentation (Items 2(d), 3(d) and 4(c))

For the Peace Officers whose personnel records are included within Categories 2 through 4, CRD also requests respirator-related recommendations and medical documentation mandated by Cal/OSHA regulation, California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5144.

CRD’s counsel states:

32. CHP’s defense to this action is based, in part, upon its argument that it was compelled to deny Officers Sandhu and Bhangal’s accommodation requests due to Regulation 5144. Regulation 5144 compliance is one of its affirmative defenses (Amended Answer, filed May 2, 2025, p. 4:17–20), and was central to its preliminary injunction opposition. (See, e.g., Morris Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, 20; CHP Opp., pp. 7:15–17, 8:21–9:16, 23:10–26:13, 30:7–10.)

33. The Regulation-5144 personnel records may constitute or support CHP’s Cal/OSHA-related defense, help ascertain whether Regulation 5144 was the actual reason for CHP’s actions in denying Officers Sandhu and Bhangal’s accommodation requests, and lend support to—or impeach—CHP’s credibility, much of which has been staked on Regulation-5144 compliance.

(Turnbull Decl., ¶ 32-33.)

To the extent CHP argues that the request seeks highly personal religious information. A stipulated protective order will lessen CHP’s concerns. To the extent CHP argues that the request seeks highly confidential medical information pursuant to the CMIA, the CMIA permits disclosure when “compelled by judicial or administrative process or by any other specific provision of law.” (Civ. Code § 56.20(c)(1).) The Court disagrees with CHP that the request is vague, overbroad or sweeping.

The Court finds that CRD’s counsel’s declaration provides good cause for the requested information. The Court GRANTS CRD’s motion with respect to Items 2(d), 3(d) and 4(c), subject to the limitations set forth above with respect to Category Nos. 3-4.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

X. In Camera Review

The Court is required to conduct an in camera review of the records before any record can be disclosed. The custodian of the personnel records at CHP is required to be present, and if desired, may bring independent counsel. People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal. 4th 1216, remains the best description of how a Pitchess hearing should be conducted. Mooc states that “both Pitchess and the statutory scheme codifying Pitchess require the intervention of a neutral trial judge, who examines the personnel records in camera, away from the eyes of either party, and orders disclosed to the [moving party] only those records that are found both relevant and otherwise in compliance with statutory limitations.” (Id. at 1227.)

Subject to statutory exceptions set forth in Evidence Code section 1045, the trial court should then disclose to the moving party “such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.” (Id. at 1226.)

The custodian of records should bring to the in camera review all documents “potentially relevant” to Plaintiff’s motion. As explained in Mooc:

When a trial court concludes a [moving party’s] Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer’s personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all “potentially relevant” documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself. (Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal. 3d at p. 84.) A law enforcement officer’s personnel record will commonly contain many documents that would, in the normal case, be irrelevant to a Pitchess motion, including those describing marital status and identifying family members, employment applications, letters of recommendation, promotion records, and health records. (See Pen.

Code, § 832.8.) Documents clearly irrelevant to a [moving party’s] Pitchess request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review. But if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court. Such practice is consistent with the premise of Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 that the locus of decisionmaking is to be the trial court, not the prosecution or the custodian of records. The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the [moving party’s] Pitchess motion.

A court reporter should be present to document

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

the custodian’s statements, as well as any questions the trial court may wish to ask the custodian regarding the completeness of the record. (See People v. Jackson, supra, 13 Cal. 4th at p. 1221, fn. 10 [explaining that this court “reviewed the sealed record of the in camera proceeding”].)”

(Id., at 1228-29.)

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1045, in determining relevance, the court shall examine the information in chambers in conformity with Section 915, and shall exclude from disclosure: facts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.

The Court orders an in camera review as follows: CHP’s custodian of records is ordered to produce the records described in Categories 2-5 subject to the limitations described above.

The custodian shall produce the records for the Court pursuant to the procedure stated in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229. The custodian shall bring the original records plus one copy, BATES stamped so that the court can refer to the records by page number. As discussed, the custodian may bring independent counsel.

Counsel are directed to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the in camera hearing and to contact the Department 16C clerk to arrange a date. Pursuant to Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, 57, “[b]efore the trial court conducts the in camera hearing . . ., the court should thus ensure that [Agency] has given the Peace Officers’ notice of that hearing.” Accordingly, at least 30 days prior to the in camera hearing, CHP shall provide notice of the in camera hearing to the Peace Officers whose records are being produced for review.

Counsel for CRD and CHP shall also promptly meet-and-confer to formulate a mutuallyagreeable protective order consistent with Section 1045(e) and to submit it for the Court’s approval and execution prior to the in camera review.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

[1] Sandhu and Bhangal filed a complaint in intervention on February 10, 2026, and their

operative second amended complaint in intervention on April 16, 2026. [2] According to CRD, before filing this motion, CHP agreed to produce, via an alternative

protective order process, what would have been described as Category 1: the personnel records

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003835: CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Peace Officer Personnel Records Disclosure in Department 16C

of Sandhu and Bhangal. (See Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Pitchess Protected Documents, executed Feb. 11, 2026.) To maintain consistency with the parties’ pre-protective order meet-and confer correspondence, CRD described the documents sought by this motion as Categories 2 through 5. [3] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Evidence Code. [4] In its amended response to CRD’s request for production of documents (set one), CHP

responded that documents in its custody and control that were responsive to CRD’s requests included personnel records for other Peace Officers denoted as AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE. (Declaration of Matthew Turnbull (“Turnbull Decl.”), ¶ 10.) During meet and confer efforts, CHP asserted that all of the items requested, including the records of Peace Officers AA-EE were subject to the Pitchess procedures. (Id., ¶ 12.) CHP also stated that the Peace Officer it denoted as AA was Bhangal. According to CRD, out of an abundance of caution, coupled with the fact that CHP’s discovery responses for requests about Bhangal still refer separately to Peace Officers AA-EE (rather than BB-EE, if Officer Bhangal is, in fact, AA), the motion seeks records about Peace Officers AA-EE. (Id., ¶ 12, fn 2.) [5] The Court notes that CHP argues that CRD’s requests are unduly burdensome. CHP submits

the Declaration of Hai Luc to support the unduly burdensome argument. None of the cases upon which CHP relies involved a Pitchess motion or the Pitchess procedures. CHP provides no legal authority that in ruling on a Pitchess motion the Court may consider the potential burdensomeness of producing the requested documents. The Court need not rule on CRD’s objections to the Declaration of Hai Luc because the Court did not consider the declaration in ruling on the motion.