City of Azusa v. Superior Court

Opinion

THE COURT.

*

In this mandamus proceeding, the City of Asuza and two of its police officers challenge an order requiring the city to deliver to real parties a complete copy of the city’s files on citizen complaints against the two officers.

This order was entered in a tort and civil rights action against the city and the two officers. The complaint alleges that the officers arrested the three plaintiffs without probable cause and employed unreasonable and injurious force to make the arrests, and that the city improperly trained and supervised the officers.

Plaintiffs requested the personnel files of the two officers, seeking records of training and job performance, including complaints of misconduct and resulting investigations and discipline imposed. After examining these records in chambers, as required by Evidence Code section 1045, subdivision (b), the trial court ordered that they be produced in their entirety.

This petition followed. The documents in question were lodged with this court under seal. On March 31, 1987, we temporarily stayed enforcement of the trial court’s order.

The conditional privilege for official information (Evid. Code, § 1040) applies in this case, along with the provisions of sections 1045 to 1047. (See

People

v.

Memro

(1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 689 [214 Cal.Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446].) Section 1040 requires the trial court to weigh the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice against the necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information, before determining what will be

[696]

ordered disclosed.

1

The trial court should summarize its evaluations on the record or in an order, so meaningful review will be possible. Here, the record not only gives no insight into the weight the trial court attributed to the competing factors, but also does not even reveal whether the court considered them at all.