Jane Doe v. County of Monterey

Under Evidence Code section 1043, a party trying to access peace or custodial officer personnel records must file a motion with the court and notify the government agency that holds or controls these records. [Evid. Code § 1043, subd. (a).] The motion should specify the types of records or information being requested and include affidavits that demonstrate good cause for their discovery or release. [Id. at subd. (b)(2)-(3).]

Good cause for discovery exists when the party seeking the records demonstrates both that the information is “material” to the case and that they have a “reasonable belief” the agency holds the relevant information. [Sisson v. Superior Court (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 24, 33-34 (internal quotes and citations omitted).] A good cause showing is assessed by “relatively relaxed standards” that aim to ensure the production of all potentially relevant documents for trial court review. [Ibid.] Additionally, good cause requires the moving party “to establish a logical link between a proposed defense and the pending charge,” explaining how the discovery would support that defense or discredit the officer’s account of events. [Ibid.]

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating a “plausible factual foundation” for discovery of the peace officer’s personnel records. [Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026.] A “plausible scenario of officer misconduct is one that might or could have occurred. Such a scenario is plausible because it presents an assertion of specific police misconduct that is both internally consistent and supports the defense proposed to the charges.” [Ibid.] The moving party “must also show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial.” [Ibid.] “Once that burden is met, the [moving party] has shown materiality under [Evidence Code] section 1043.” [Ibid.]

Discussion.

The County argues that Plaintiff fails to make the requisite showing by requesting Sgt. Tamondong’s entire personnel file without specifying which parts might be relevant to her claims.

In her reply, Plaintiff contends that she has adequately established the logical connection between the requested records and the Complaint. First, Plaintiff contends that the Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigation is directly relevant to the FEHA claims because it is necessary to determine whether the County’s response to Plaintiff’s complaint was sufficient. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that documents related to jail instructor selections and deputy hiring decisions are directly relevant to the retaliation claims. She also maintains that the requested information helps evaluate whether the County had notice of similar conduct, fulfilled its duty to prevent and respond to harassment, and whether the documents support her allegations that the County failed to investigate and/or prevent harassment.

Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated good cause for this Court to consider an order of disclosure under Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b)(3), regarding Sgt. Tamondong’s personnel records about: (1) harassment prevention training; (2) the County’s response to harassment complaints; (3) the investigation of harassment complaints and their outcomes; and (4) other complaints about harassment by Sgt. Tamondong, given the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint concerning his behavior toward her, along with internal perceptions related to that relationship. Indeed, the County does not deny that an IA investigation was initiated.

The County presents various reasons why the IA investigation records cannot be disclosed. The Court acknowledges that such records are considered confidential. [Pen. Code §§ 832.7, 832.5] However, the County’s reliance on Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 565 is misplaced because, unlike in this case, Plaintiff is not the

target of the investigation and has offered to accept the records under a protective order. Plaintiff was already interviewed as part of the IA investigation on November 17, 2025, so there is no concern that disclosure could improperly influence her testimony.

The County also contends that in camera review of any records related to the ongoing IA investigation is inappropriate because (1) it is ongoing, and (2) potential disclosure risks undermine the investigation's integrity. However, this argument overlooks the Court’s gatekeeping role. For example, after conducting the in camera review, the Court may implement appropriate safeguards, such as limiting the scope of discoverable information. Therefore, the fact that the IA investigation is still ongoing six months after Plaintiff was interviewed is not sufficient to prevent this Court from ordering in camera production.

Conclusion.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The County shall produce the personnel records of Sgt. Tamongdong identified in this Tentative Ruling for in camera review on June 22, 2026, at 10 a.m. in Department 14. The County shall also produce its custodian of records, who will be available to testify about the records.

Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING

This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

3