Montebello Police Dept. v. Super. Ct. CA2/4

Filed 11/13/13 Montebello Police Dept. v. Super. Ct. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

MONTEBELLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, B251106

Petitioner, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 3EA02757) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

OSCAR CANALEZ-VENTURA,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; application for a writ of mandate. Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Petition granted. Jones & Mayer and Gregory P. Palmer for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Janice Fukai, Alternate Public Defender, Thomas J. Burns, and Hyun S. Im for Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Montebello Police Department filed the instant petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order requiring the disclosure of two complaints contained in a Montebello officer’s personnel file. We conclude petitioner is correct that the material ordered disclosed by the trial court is not relevant to the pending litigation and grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Real party in interest Oscar Canalez-Ventura was charged with two counts of burglary of a vehicle and two counts of petty theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 484, subd. (a).) He filed a discovery motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. Counsel’s declaration alleged that the police report prepared by Detectives Miranda and Avila attributed statements to Canalez-Ventura that he did not make. In the motion, Canalez-Ventura sought discovery of complaints against the detectives that alleged, among other things, they committed acts of dishonesty. On August 1, 2013, the trial court granted the motion with respect to complaints relating to allegations of dishonesty. On August 20, the court conducted an in camera hearing and examined the detectives’ personnel files. It ordered the disclosure of two complaints against Detective Avila. Nothing in Detective Miranda’s file was deemed discoverable. On September 10, 2013, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandate and sought an immediate stay of the trial court’s discovery order. We granted petitioner’s request to file, under seal, the complaints ordered disclosed. On September 19, we issued a temporary stay of the trial court’s order and an alternative writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its discovery order or show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue ordering it to do so. Canalez-Ventura filed a return to the writ and petitioner filed a reply.