HERNANDEZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

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 of Department 3A 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 of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Jamie Hernandez’s (Petitioner) motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records (Pitchess Motion), in which Respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) joins to a limited extent, is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Petitioner is employed by CDCR as a correctional officer. Petitioner initiated this action on December 16, 2025, challenging a disciplinary order issued by CDCR. Petitioner is also

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000228: HERNANDEZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) in Department 3A

challenging the disciplinary order in a concurrent administrative proceeding before Respondent State Personnel Board (SPB). Among the bases for Petitioner’s challenge is his assertion that CDCR’s disciplinary action is untimely under the one-year limitations period established by the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”). (See Gov. Code, § 3304.)

The events from which the disciplinary action against Petitioner arose involved an inmate’s attack on another correctional officer. During the relevant time period, Petitioner was working as a correctional officer at the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California. (Petition [Pet.] ¶ 18.) On January 20, 2024, an inmate at Sierra Conservation Center breached a control booth within the facility and held the Control Booth Officer hostage for approximately five hours, during which time the inmate assaulted the officer and threatened to kill her, her family, and other officers if she alerted anyone to the situation. (Pet. ¶¶ 22, 26.) Petitioner and other officers failed to determine that the inmate was not in his cell when they performed an inmate count at 2115 hours and during subsequent counts. (Pet. ¶¶ 24-28.)

CDCR conducted an investigation of the incident. Petitioner alleges that an administrative memo was prepared on approximately February 20, 2024, requesting administrative review of the incident. (Pet. ¶ 35.) The memo allegedly asserted that Petitioner “violated policy by not conducting a proper count, specifically, that Hernandez counted the subject inmate as being in his cell when the inmate as already in the control booth.” (Ibid.) In addition to this administrative review, CDCR conducted a criminal investigation.

The scope and specific nature of this investigation are unclear, but the parties refer to the fact that a criminal investigation “relating to the officer injured in the incident” occurred. (CDCR Resp., 6:7-8.) Petitioner’s counsel declares, on information and belief, that CDCR “criminally investigated the Control Booth Officer” regarding potential misconduct. (Declaration of Lina Balciunas Cockrell [Cockrell Decl.] ¶ 23.)

On June 2, 2025, CDCR served Petitioner with a Letter of Intent to impose discipline based on Petitioner’s alleged failure to conduct a proper inmate count. (Pet. ¶ 38.) The letter stated that the investigation was completed within one year of the end of a tolling period after the discovery of Petitioner’s misconduct. (Ibid.) The proposed discipline was a 10 percent salary reduction for nine qualifying pay periods. (Ibid.) On June 24, 2025, CDCR served Petitioner with a Notice of Adverse Action imposing the proposed discipline. (Pet. ¶ 39.)

Petitioner appealed the salary reduction to the SPB, and sought discovery from CDCR in connection with that administrative proceeding. (Pet. ¶¶ 44-47.) According to CDCR, pursuant to a Pitchess motion filed with SPB, “certain information was disclosed subject to a protective order.” (CDCR Resp. 7:6-7.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000228: HERNANDEZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) in Department 3A

Petitioner filed this action on December 16, 2025. Petitioner alleges that the discipline against him was imposed after the expiration of the one-year limitations period established by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d)(1), and is therefore unlawful.

On January 13, 2026, this Court denied Petitioner’s ex parte application for an order staying the SPB proceedings regarding Petitioner’s administrative appeal of the disciplinary order. The Court declined to intervene in the administrative proceedings, given SPB’s concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate a defense to discipline based on the POBRA.

Petitioner asserts that the parties participated in an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the discipline before the SPB in “mid-April 2026” and are awaiting SPB’s decision. On Reply, Petitioner clarifies that he did not assert a statute of limitation defense based on the POBRA in the administrative appeal: “While [Petitioner] initially asserted a POBR timeliness argument as an affirmative defense at the SPB, he withdrew that claim. Accordingly, the POBR timeliness issue is not currently before the SPB, nor has it been litigated or decided there.” (Reply, 3:12- 14.)

Procedural Issues

The POBRA grants the superior court “initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department” for alleged violations of the officer’s POBRA rights. (Gov. Code, § 3309.5, subd. (c).) It is well established that this grant of jurisdiction permits an officer to assert a claim under POBRA through an administrative challenge while concurrently prosecuting an action for relief in the superior court:

[A] public safety seeking to enjoin a violation of the Act [POBRA] is entitled to proceed through the administrative hearing, and to petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, while simultaneously filing a separate proceeding for relief from violation of the Act under section 3309.5.

(Moore v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 373, 385; citing Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603.)

The trial court thus may exercise jurisdiction over Petitioner’s POBRA claims, notwithstanding the pending challenge before the SPB: “[A]llegations of POBRA violations are matters [officers] were entitled to pursue ‘immediately in the courts’ without having to wait for judicial review after administrative consideration of those violations.’” (Daugherty v. City & County of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000228: HERNANDEZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) in Department 3A

San Francisco (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 928, 946.)

The Instant Pitchess Motion

Petitioner now moves to compel discovery of CDCR “records, documents, and information likely [to] contain material evidence and information relevant to the timing and subject matter of the criminal investigation CDCR allegedly conducted, as well as confirmation of the timing of the date of discovery, for POBR purposes, of [Petitioner’s] own alleged misconduct.” (Opening Mem. 5:17-20.)

As Petitioner’s request implicates peace officer personnel records, Petitioner invokes the process recognized in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 for determining whether such records must be produced. The requirements for filing a Pitchess motion are established by Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045. A party seeking discovery or disclosure of “peace of custodial officer personnel records” must “file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body” that includes 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.

(Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b).)

The court evaluates a request for such discovery under according to the following standard:

Good cause for discovery of peace officer personnel records under the statutory scheme exists when the party seeking the discovery shows the “materiality” of the information to the subject matter of the pending litigation and states upon “reasonable belief” that the agency has the type of information sought. [citations] A sufficient threshold showing is established if the party seeking records demonstrates through affidavits a “plausible factual foundation” for how the records are material to the subject matter of the pending litigation. [citation] The affiant’s credibility is not at issue; the trial court determines

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000228: HERNANDEZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) in Department 3A

whether a plausible factual foundation has been established; it does not determine whether the moving party’s version of events is credible or persuasive.

(Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655.)

Here, Petitioner seeks peace officer personnel records for the stated purpose of discovering: “(1) when any criminal investigation was opened, assigned, and referred to the District Attorney; (2) the specific allegations under investigation; (3) whether [Petitioner] was identified as a subject, witness, or otherwise involved; (4) how [Petitioner] was involved in the criminal investigation; and (5) when the investigation concluded.” (Opening Mem. 15:6-10.)

Petitioner identifies twenty-seven categories of records for disclosure, including a request for the deposition of CDCR Special Agent Sean Espley. (Opening Mem. 7:21-11:18.) These requests include the report for the criminal investigation at issue, designated Criminal Report NV- SCC040-24-C, with its attached exhibits, as well as a broad range of other communications and records. Petitioner requests the production of these categories of records, subject to the Court’s “in camera review, appropriate redactions, and a protective order.” (Opening Mem. 15:19-21.)

In response, CDCR does not oppose the disclosure of Criminal Report NV-SCC040-24-C, subject to a protective order and redactions of officer names other than Petitioner. CDCR also agrees to disclose the exhibits to the report for in camera review “for determination if any are material to the tolling period.” (CDCR Resp. 12:22-23.) To the degree Petitioner’s requests seek information not contained in these documents, CDCR contends that Petitioner has not established their materiality to the subject matter of the litigation.

The Court agrees. As Petitioner acknowledges, the POBRA violation alleged is limited to the applicability of the statute’s one-year limitations period. Thus, the scope of any discovery under the Pitchess framework is also limited to that issue. Petitioner does not explain why production of the criminal investigation report is insufficient to establish the dates and scope of that investigation, which Petitioner concedes comprise the information material to his statute of limitations defense.

The Court acknowledges the parties’ disagreement regarding whether or not an officer must be the target or subject of a criminal investigation in order for the tolling provision in Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d)(2)(A) to apply. (See Daugherty v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 961.) The Court expresses no view on this question at this time. The Court need not resolve this question in order to conclude that the appropriate scope of Pitchess discovery here is limited to the timing and scope of the criminal investigation,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000228: HERNANDEZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion) in Department 3A

information which maybe reasonably assumed to be found in the Criminal Report NV-SCC040- 24-C.

Disposition

Petitioner’s motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is granted, as follows: CDCR shall disclose the Criminal Report NV-SCC040-24-C, with officer names other than Petitioner’s redacted and subject to a protective order limiting dissemination of the report to use in this litigation.

Petitioner is granted leave to request in camera review of the exhibits to the Criminal Report NV-SCC040-24-C to the degree the report itself is insufficient to establish the applicability of the POBRA limitations period.

Petitioner’s motion is otherwise denied.

Respondent shall prepare a formal order consistent with this ruling that attaches this ruling as an exhibit, submit it to the opposing party for approval as to form, and thereafter submit it to the Court for signature in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. The formal order shall include protective order provisions applicable to the Criminal Report NV-SCC040-24-C.