Shaun Peterson v. State of California, et al.

Hearing Time: | 8:30 a.m. | [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT | Background Plaintiff Tesseract, Inc. ("Plaintiff") appears to request entry of default judgment against Defendant EDS Supply Chain, Inc., in the total amount of $568,158.20, comprising $564,108.20 demanded in the complaint, $1,875.00 in costs, and $2,175.00 in attorney fees.

Although Plaintiff requested entry of default multiple times, Plaintiff's requests have been unsuccessful. Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for default judgment without prejudice.

The Court cannot review a default judgment package without Plaintiff first obtaining entry of default. Plaintiff is ordered to resubmit the request for entry of default by _________. Within ______ days of the entry of default, Plaintiff is ordered to file a new default judgment package. The hearing on the default judgment package is set on _____________, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 508. Courtesy copies of the default judgment package must be delivered to Dept. 508 concurrently with filing.

DATED: August 18, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 SHAUN PETERSON, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | Hearing Date: | August 18, 2026 | | Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF SHAUN PETERSON'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE Sec. 1045 | | | | Background Plaintiff Shaun Peterson ("Peterson") filed this action on December 1, 2025 against Defendants State of California, California Highway Patrol ("CHP"), Officer Christopher Bertz ("Bertz"), Officer Katherine Hendry ("Hendry"), Sergeant Jimmie Ryland ("Ryland"), and Sergeant Karen Costill ("Costill"), alleging five causes of action.

On July 15, 2026, Peterson filed the operative first amended complaint ("FAC"), alleging six causes of action for (1) civil rights violation (Civ. Code Sec.52.1), (2) false arrest, (3) battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligence, and (6) negligent employment.

Peterson now moves for the California Highway Patrol to disclose records and documents relating to Defendant Officers Christopher Bertz, Katherine Hendry, Sargent Jimmie Ryland, and Sargent Karen Costill. CHP, Bertz, Hendry, Ryland, and Costill (collectively, "Defendants") oppose. Peterson replied. /// /// Legal Standard There is a special two-step procedure for securing disclosure of peace officer personnel records. ((Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.)

First, the party seeking disclosure must file a motion that identifies the peace officer, the agency in possession of the records, a description of the records, who is seeking the records, as well as the time and place of the hearing. ((Evid. Code, Sec. 1043, subd. (b)(1) .) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration showing "good cause" for disclosure of the records: setting forth the materiality of the records, and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the requested documents. (Evid. Code, Sec. 1043, subd. (b)(3) .) This is a so-called "Pitchess" motion, derived from Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

T he Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b) "good cause" declaration must be sufficiently specific "to preclude the possibility of [the movant] simply casting about for any helpful information." ((People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.) However, a declaration based upon information and belief and containing hearsay may be used to evidence good cause in support of a Pitchess motion. ((Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1086.)

The moving party need show only a "plausible factual foundation" for discovery-- i.e., a scenario of officer misconduct that might occur or could have occurred. (Warrick v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 1025.) All that is required is the presentation of a scenario that might have or could have occurred, i.e., a "relatively low threshold." ((Uybungco v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048); ((see also Blumberg v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1248 [the good cause requirement of section 1043(b) "embodies a 'relatively low threshold' for discovery' [citation], under which a defendant need demonstrate only 'a logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge' and describe with some specificity 'how the discovery being sought would support such a defense'"]); ((Becerrada v.

Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 409, 413 ["A showing of good cause is measured by 'relatively relaxed standards' that serve to 'insure the production' for trial court review of 'all potentially relevant documents.'"] .)

Second, if the court finds good cause, then an in camera hearing must be held. ((Slayton v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 61.) After personally examining the records in camera, the trial court shall order disclosure of peace officer personnel records that are "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation." (Evid. Code, Sec. 1045, subd. (a); (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1226.) If disclosure is ordered, the court must also order that the disclosed information may not be used "for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law." (Evid. Code, Sec. 1045, subd. (e) .)

In terms of procedure, notice of the motion must be served in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), on the parties and on the governmental agency that has the records. (Evid. Code, Sec. 1043, subd. (a) .) The agency is required to notify the individual officer whose records are sought. (Evid. Code, Sec. 1043, subd. (c); see also Evid. Code, Sec. 1043, subd. (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."].)

Discussion

As a threshold matter, Peterson's proof of service filed with the motion indicates that "ROB BONTA Attorney General of California QUINTIN LUCAS Supervising Deputy Attorney General RUSSELL EMMONS Deputy Attorney General ... Attorneys for Defendants CHP Officer Katherine Hendry, CHP Sergeant Jimmie Ryland, and Officer Christopher Bertz" were served with the motion. (Mot., 27:10-17.)

However, the proof of service does not appear to indicate that any government agency with c ustody and control of the records was served. Nor does Peterson's motion or supporting declaration state that he sent written notice to the requisite governmental agency. Under Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a), " [i]n 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:..." (Emphasis added.)

Thus, Plaintiff failed to comply with the requisite procedural requirements under Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (a) here.

Additionally, Defendants point out in their opposition that the "motion violates California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) . Excluding the caption, tables, and declarations, the plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities is 20 pages long. The plaintiff did not seek or obtain leave of court to file an oversized brief, as required by rule 3.1113(e) ." (Opp., 1:21-24.) Defendants request that "[b]ecause the plaintiff circumvented the rules to file a brief five pages beyond the statutory limit, without the requisite showing of good cause, the Court should exercise its discretion to decline to consider the plaintiff's noncompliant memorandum entirely or, alternately, disregard any arguments presented past page 15." (Opp., 1:28-2:3.)

The Court concurs that Peterson's memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion well exceeds the applicable page limit. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d), " [e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages . ... The page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service." (Emphasis added.) Here, Peterson's memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion consists of 20 pages. Peterson does not appear to cite any Court order authorizing him to include additional pages in the memorandum of points and authorities.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Peterson's motion is DENIED without prejudice. Peterson is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: 8/18/26 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet