Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Production of Pitchess Documents Evid Code 1043 Et SeqMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.March 3, 2017Electronically FILED by Sup eo R N N n RA W N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m p m em N O nt RA W N = O O R N S R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 M or Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/28/2019 04:15 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk Tomas A. Guterres, Esq., (State Bar No. 152729) Jessica J. Mead, Esq., (State Bar No. 299050) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR +STEWART LLP 1100 El Centro Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 Exempt from Payment of Filing Fee (626) 243-1100 - FAX (626) 243-1111 Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103. Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [erroneously sued as "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"] and JEFF HUDSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT REGINA CRENSHAW, an individual, CASE NO. BC652399 [Assigned to Judge Deirdre Hill, Dept. 49] Plaintiff, DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF “PITCHESS” DOCUMENTS (Evid. Code §§ 1043 et. seq.) VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, a Governmental Entity, and JEFF HUDSON, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Date: March 13, 2019 Time: 8:30a.m. Dept.: 49 Defendants. Complaint Filed: 3/3/2017 Trial Date: 09/26/2019 N r N r N r N e N N N e N N N e N e N N N N N N Defendants County of Los Angeles and Jeff Hudson (collectively “County Defendants”) hereby submit their opposition to Plaintiff Regina Crenshaw’s motion for production of “Pitchess” documents. 1 IZ 1 IZ 20475 1 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 II. III. IV. VL VII. VII. 20475 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION o.oo etter esate sates estes sees sae eee sae ens 1 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......cocoooiiiiiii eects 2 STANDARDS GOVERNING A PITCHESS MOTION .......cccooonimiiniiieienieneeecens 2 PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ARE MATERIAL TO HER CLAIM.......ccccoceeiiiniiiiniieeieeie sc nes 3 A. The Court’s Decision in Riske Establishes that Materiality is More Difficult to Prove When the Officers Are Not Involved in the Alleged Wrongdoing ............. 4 B. Plaintiff Failed to Establish Materiality of Documents Requested in No. 3 through 11 Because the Officer Misconduct identified is Not Similar to the Misconduct Plaintiff Was. DiSeiplined For sxsw swam smsmessemssasssmssmmssssass 4 C. Plaintiff Failed to Establish Materiality of Documents Requested in Requests Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 13 Because Plaintiff Does Not Claim County Failed to Investigate Reports of Harassment ...........ccceeueeoieiriiinnienie cece cece se s 7 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE FIVE YEAR LIMITATION FOR PITCHESS PRODUCTIONS ......cccooooiiiiiiiniiienececie cies 9 THIS COURT HAS ALREADY FOUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF INVESTIGATING OFTTCERS 5.05 5050 sr ass sas sm. 5555557 35555 5.05 5655535 55555 57.08 555755 55555 55 5 R553 S553 57.48 53555 54555 55.08.55 9 ANY DISCLOSURE ORDERED MUST BE NARROWLY TAILORED AND MADE PURSUANT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER .........cccooiiiiniiiiicccee 10 A. Even Assuming Plaintiff Has Somehow Satisfied Her Burden Under Section 1043, This Court Should Conduct an In-Camera Inspection Prior to Production Of ANY PitCHESS NIALETIALS im. cussnos ssmsssnn simon snes se 55s o45555%.06 455555 55555 5538 AH5575 F555 50455 10 B. Any Production Ordered Should be Narrowly Tailored ........ccccceceeviiniiiiniennennne. 11 C. This Court Must Issue a Protective Order for Any Pitchess Material Ordered Produced ..........ocooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiic 11 CONCLUSION ee eee eee sate ste tes bee beea teste sa eee ebe ete enees 12 2 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION eo R N N n RA W N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m p m em N O nt RA W N = O O R N S R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.APP.3A 1118 eee eters teeters sae eebe ese eeseesaae ees 11 McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal APPA T5100 cece eee sbeebs sate sabe e eee eeas 5,7 McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2000) 142 Cal. APPA B77 ceo ete etter esabe essere ee sabe ee sabe ens 5 People v. Roberts C1992 2. CHAI TT. «consis ssas mass sis oss issn 555557 53555 453045 AS35583 55 RS SAAS 11 Riske v. Superior Court (2016), 6 Cal. APDP.Sh O47 «oon sees ee sabe eee ese eeeeas 3,4,6 San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Caldth 47... b eee tbe sabe e nee et ae sateen 9,10, 11 Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal. AR 1 O01 1 sus omnscunnmssunnsn onsen snosssssmss sms osmmms sma ae-5 seas mae s sm 3 STATUES PAGE(S) EVI. COE § DL5(D) cuties eters testes sb te sabe eae e sb eesbbe sabe anse eases sate enbe anes 3,10 EVId. €Ode § 1043 .....neiieieee eee teeter eet te sete eae e teeta sabe sabe eee eta e sabe enbe anne 2,3,10 EVId. COE § 1043(D) ..uiieiuiiiieiiiieeiie ieee eet eesti eet te setts setae er ee seas esas ae easaae esas ae sassaessssaessssaessseeessseeessns 3 ENA. COTE SB LIS: osm. missin moon somos sis iss 505555 445535045 A545 2055 AS SA 8 AHS SATS 3,9 EVId. COE § TOAS5(Q) cuvreeieiirieieeiiiiie eects ee ette ee ette essere ees stat ae ae sastae eee sas seas ssssae ae ssnsaeeesnnsssaesnnssnans 3,9 Evid, COTE § LDF) us cusnmsmnsnn ssn own ssmss soso wssssmss sums ss mesma sme -5 seas uae ss samen 3,9,10 EVid. Code § TOA5(D)(1) cuvuteiiiieiiie eee eee eabt esses sabe ee sabe ee sabe essen 1 EVid. COA@ § TOAS5() .uieuuiiiiieitie tter testes re set sateen teeta sabe sabe ene e esas esae enna anne 11 EVIA. COE § TOAS5(E) cuveauuiiiiieitie eit et teste ete ete e sate sabe sabe e nse eens ee esbe esse anne ee nsae esse enna anne 11 EVIA. COE § 1046 eevee eects eee ett e este e eae eta e ease ae anes ae esas ae sass ee ssss ae ssseeessaeeessseeessns 2 Penal Code § 832.7(@) uuu iieiiiieeiiieieeeeeie ee ette eee ee esse ee ee evae eee nabe ee ae sssaae eee nsaa ae eenabaae ee esnaaeaeensraaeann 3 20475 3 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Different types of misconduct warrant different types of discipline. Plaintiff’s motion casts a wide net and seeks “all documents and information” regarding various instances of alleged employee misconduct unrelated to this lawsuit. While Plaintiff argues that County’s treatment of other employees’ misconduct is evidence that County’s treatment of Plaintiff for her own misconduct was retaliatory, none of the other employee misconduct identified in Plaintiff’s document requests is similar to the misconduct that Plaintiff was disciplined for. County has already identified Plaintiff as the only employee who failed to report damage to her department issued vehicle and who made misleading statements once the policy violation was discovered. Any documents regarding misconduct by other employees are therefore immaterial to Plaintiff’s claims. Likewise, Plaintiff failed to set forth the materiality of requested documents regarding harassment claims that are not the subject of this lawsuit. Plaintiff argues such documents are material as pattern and practice evidence; however Plaintiff failed to set forth a plausible factual foundation establishing how the documents could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff did not claim (nor can she claim), that there was no investigation following the reports of harassment. Plaintiff’s vague claim that County failed to take “proper action” regarding such reports does not amount to a plausible factual showing of materiality. Moreover, in her Complaint Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Hudson, Senior Investigator Ron Robinette and Sergeant Dave Maro subjected her to retaliation and harassment. The vast majority of Plaintiffs document requests do not claim that Hudson, Robinette or Maro had any involvement in the discipline or actions taken against the other employees. Accordingly, documents responsive to such requests have no relevance to Plaintiff’s claims. This Court has already reviewed Hudson, Robinette and Maro’s files in response to Plaintiff’s first Pitchess motion and has already made rulings as to what documents from those files are relevant to this case. Plaintiff’s few requests that do relate to Hudson and Robinette must be rejected-Plaintiff does not get a second bite. Finally, Plaintiff’s requests includes no time parameters (as required) and/or substantially exceed the five-year time limitation set forth in Evidence Code section 1045(b)(1). Consequently, this 20475 1 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Court should deny Plaintiffs motion. If, however, the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion, it should substantially narrow the scope of documents sought and issue a protective order. II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff, who is a Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Senior Investigator, alleges that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment due to her race and gender by her then-supervisor, Sergeant Jeff Hudson. Plaintiff alleges that she reported the alleged inappropriate behavior by Sergeant Hudson to the County on April 1, 2015 and Sergeant Hudson was transferred to a different unit. Plaintiff was assigned a new supervisor-Sgt. Dave Maro. Plaintiff alleged that since she reported Hudson’s behavior, she became the subject of retaliation from Senior Investigator Rob Robinette. After Plaintiff complained about the retaliation to Sgt. Maro, Plaintiff alleges Sgt. Maro failed to take sufficient steps to stop the retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that thereafter, Sgt. Maro himself began to retaliate against Plaintiff. On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that she noticed her County-issued vehicle had a scratch on its rear bumper. In order to “avoid confrontation” with Sgt. Maro, Plaintiff acknowledges she violated County policy by not reporting the damage and instead having a friend “buff out the scratch.” When the repair was discovered by a County garage employee during routine maintenance to Plaintiff’s vehicle, Plaintiff lied about the repair. Plaintiff’s failure to report the damage to her County-issued vehicle and cover-up of the incident led to an internal investigation. County has already disclosed to Plaintiff in verified discovery responses that Plaintiff is the only County employee who was found to have failed to report damage to her County vehicle and then was found to have been untruthful after the failure to report was discovered. Declaration of Jessica J. Mead (“Mead Decl.”) at 92, Exh. A (County Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) No. 31). On January 24, 2017, subsequent to the completion of the investigation, Plaintiff was served with a 15-day suspension and re-assigned to a new position. Plaintiff was not terminated in connection with the incident. III. STANDARDS GOVERNING A PITCHESS MOTION “Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records . . . shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the 20475 2 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Evidence Code.” Penal Code § 832.7(a). Evidence Code section 1043 (b) mandates that the motion must, among other things, include “[a]ffidavits 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.” If a moving party satisfies its considerable burden under Evidence Code section 1043, the court must conduct an in-camera review of the documents sought (see Evid. Code §§ 915(b), 1045(b)), and can require the disclosure of “only that information falling within the statutorily defined standards of relevance.” Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019. Evidence Code section 1045 provides limitations on the scope of discovery of personnel records where a party seeks records of complaints or discipline against an officer. Only those records which are relevant to the pending litigation are subject to disclosure. See Evid. Code § 1045(a). In determining whether documents are relevant, the Court shall examine the documents in camera. Evid. Code § 1045(b). Evidence Code section 1045 mandates that the court exclude from disclosure: (1) all complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction which is the subject of the current litigation; (2) any conclusions of any investigating officers relating to citizen complaints, and (3) any facts that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit. Evid. Code § 1045(b). IV. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ARE MATERIAL TO HER CLAIM Plaintiff cannot obtain an in-camera review of the requested documents unless she meets her burden of establishing “a plausible factual foundation for how the records are material to the subject matter of the pending litigation.” Motion at 8:11-14;citing Riske v. Superior Court (2016), 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655. In her motion Plaintiff relies on Riske to argue that she is not precluded from seeking records of officers who were not accused of wrongdoing in her lawsuit. Motion at p. 8:9-11. Plaintiff’s reliance on Riske is misplaced because that case establishes that Plaintiff failed to meet the required element of materiality. 20475 3 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 A. The Court’s Decision in Riske Establishes that Materiality is More Difficult to Prove When the Officers Are Not Involved in the Alleged Wrongdoing. In Riske, the plaintiff police officer claimed that he was not promoted after applying for fourteen prestigious positions in retaliation for his protected whistleblowing activity. Riske, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at 642. The city defendant responded that it had legitimate business reasons for not promoting the plaintiff-the selected candidates were more qualified. /bid. The plaintiff brought a Pitchess motion for the production of the TEAMS Reports and the last two performance evaluations of each of the officers who were selected for the promotions over him. Id. at 643. In support of the motion the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of retired Captain Joel Justice, who had twenty-one years of experience with the department and who was familiar with promoting policies. Ibid. In his affidavit Captain Justice explained that supervisors made promotion decisions based on the applicant’s TEAMS report and last two performance evaluations. Ibid. The plaintiff argued that the documents were material to his ability to prove that the defendant city’s stated reason for denying his promotion based on more qualified candidates was pre-textual. Ibid. The court of appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling denying the motion on the grounds that the discovery procedure did not apply to records of officers who had not committed or witnessed misconduct. /d. at 654. In so ruling, the court explained that, “the critical limitation for purposes of the initial threshold determination is materiality, which, in this context, means the evidence sought is admissible or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. at 658 (emphasis added). The court explained that, in most cases, materiality will be found when the officer was involved in the alleged wrongdoing, and not found when the officer was not involved in the wrongdoing. Id. at 659. The court reasoned that since the plaintiff’s retaliation case rests on the premise that the officers promoted were less qualified than him, information from the TEAMS report and performance evaluations of those officers could be material. B. Plaintiff Failed to Establish Materiality of Documents Requested in No. 3 through 11 Because the Officer Misconduct Identified is Not Similar to the Misconduct Plaintiff Was Disciplined For In contrast to the plaintiff in Riske, Plaintiff has not shown that the records she requested 20475 4 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff claims that the documents regarding the unrelated misconduct of other employees are material to her lawsuit because the documents could support her claims that she was overly punished with a Notice of Intent to Discharge for her own misconduct of failing to properly report a scratch on her bumper and making a false statement when the damage was discovered. Motion at 9:26-10:2. Plaintiff’s argument fails because none of the documents requested involve conduct that is similar to the conduct that Plaintiff was disciplined for. California courts recognize that different types and degrees of misconduct warrant different types and degrees of discipline. McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1536. Thus, there can be no inference of discrimination “when an employer has treated differently different kinds of misconduct by employees holding different positions.” Id. Here, County advised Plaintiff in verified discovery responses (and in its notice of 15 day suspension letter to Plaintiff), that its legitimate business reason for suspending Plaintiff for fifteen days was her failure to report damage to the County vehicle assigned to her, and her subsequent misleading statements surrounding the circumstances under which she attempted to repair the County vehicle in order to conceal the damage from the Department. Mead Decl. at 3, Exh. 2 (County’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 25). Plaintiff served discovery on County asking for the identities of other employees who were found to have failed to report vehicle damage and who made subsequent misleading statements, and County provided verified responses establishing that Plaintiff was the only such employee. Mead Decl. at |2 Exh. A (County Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) No. 31). Since there are no other employees found to have committed misconduct similar to Plaintiff, the documents that Plaintiff seeks in her motion cannot lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the language of Requests No. 3 through 11 establishes that the documents sought do not relate to misconduct similar to the misconduct that Plaintiff was disciplined for. Request 3 ! While Plaintiff claims that she was overly punished because she given a notice of intent to discharge, the notice of intent to discharge is not actionable because it was never acted on. See McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 392-93 (proposed but unimplemented suspension of employee is not actionable). Thus the fact that other employees were not served with a notice of intent to discharge is utterly irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 20475 5 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 and 4 seek documents regarding misconduct of driving under the influence. Requests No. 6 and No. 7 involve conduct of running an unauthorized search into a criminal database, and misplacing a firearm. Such misconduct does not even bear a correlation to dishonesty in general, let alone dishonestly in connection with a cover-up of a violation of department policy. Request No. 5 also fails to establish the materiality element because the request is so vague that it is not possible to tell what type of conduct is being referenced or what documents are being requested. Plaintiff seeks “all writings and information related to Senior Investigator Jennifer Martin not telling the truth, making a false statement, or otherwise being placed on a ‘Brady’ list.” Plaintiff does not include information about what Jennifer Martin’s alleged conduct of not telling the truth was in reference to, or whether her conduct in not telling the truth even occurred while she was on duty, or who she did not tell the truth or made a false statement to. The catch-all “or otherwise being placed on a ‘Brady’ list” portion of the request suggests that the misconduct may not even involve not telling the truth or making a false statement. Without particular information establishing that Martin’s conduct was similar to Plaintiff’s conduct, Plaintiff is incapable of establishing that the documents she requested in number 5 are material to her claim that her discipline for failing to report damage to her vehicle and making subsequent misleading statements is retaliatory. Unlike the request for TEAMS Reports and two years of performance evaluations of the officers who were promoted to the positions that the plaintiff in Riske applied for, here there is no suggestion that the broad “writings and information” requested could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Similarly, Requests Nos. 8-11 fail to include information to suggest that the officer misconduct of repairing County vehicles on their own is similar the misconduct that Plaintiff was disciplined for. While the request does allege that, like Plaintiff, the employees repaired County vehicles on their own, there is no information to suggest that the employees failed to report the damage, that County knew that the employees failed to report the damage, or that the employees were dishonest when their misconduct was discovered. Merely repairing a County vehicle is not similar to Plaintiff’s misconduct in lying as part of an effort to cover up her policy violation. 1" 20475 6 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION eo R N N n RA W N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m p m em N O nt RA W N = O O R N S R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Ces Lying or withholding information during an employer’s internal investigation “is a legitimate reason to terminate an at-will employee.” McGrory, supra, 212 Cal. App. 4th at 1528. The information sought in Requests 8 through 11 thus does not relate to misconduct similar to the misconduct that Plaintiff was disciplined for. As a result Plaintiff is not entitled to an in-camera review of responsive documents. C. Plaintiff Failed to Establish the Materiality of the Documents Requested in Requests Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 13 Because Plaintiff Does Not Claim County Failed to Investigate Reports of Harassment Plaintiff’s motion also seeks documents regarding instances of alleged harassment unrelated to the harassment set forth in her Complaint. Plaintiff argues that these documents are somehow material to her lawsuit by claiming that County’s failure to “take proper action” regarding the harassment are a material pattern and practice evidence. Documents concerning instances of alleged harassment can only qualify as relevant pattern and practice evidence if there is evidence that County learned about the harassment, and then failed to investigate and issue appropriate discipline. Any information that County learns during such an investigation would dictate if and how County would discipline the alleged wrongdoer. Plaintiff does not allege, nor can she allege, that County did not investigate reports harassment. Instead, Plaintiff claims that County’s “failure to take proper action” in response to the report is pattern and practice evidence, without explaining what the proper action would be. As set forth in more detail below, Request Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 13 amount to improper “fishing expedition” requests void of a plausible factual showing of materiality. Specifically, Request No. 1 seeks all investigation and any resulting discipline taken regarding Jeffrey Hudson’s alleged discrimination against Jody Little. Plaintiff argues that these documents are relevant as “Me-Too” evidence and pattern and practice evidence of how County treated such claims. First, there is no information in the supporting declaration that suggests that County knew of and did not investigate a report of Hudson’s allegedly discriminatory conduct. Therefore, there is no plausible factual foundation to suggest that County has a pattern and practice of failing to prevent discrimination. Second, the request is not relevant “Me Too” evidence because it is not discriminatory. Plaintiff claims that Hudson called Jody Little “Chiquita”, which is Spanish 20475 7 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 for little. There is plausible factual foundation to suggest that such a comment is discriminatory. Finally, to the extent that there was an investigation into a discriminatory comment by Hudson concerning Jody Little within the five years preceding Hudson’s allegedly discriminatory comments to Plaintiff, this Court has already conducted an in camera review of Hudson's files and has already ordered what the Court has deemed relevant to be produced. Plaintiff sought in her first Pitchess motion all complaints against Hudson from any source relating to discrimination. Since the Court did not order the production of documents regarding the “Chiquita” comment, this Court has already found that no responsive, material documents exist. The remaining requests involve instances of sexual harassment by persons other than the subjects of Plaintiff’s complaint-Hudson, Maro and Robinette. Since there is no connection between the instances of alleged sexual harassment in the remaining requests and Hudson, Maro and Robinette, documents responsive to the remaining categories have no relevance whatsoever to Plaintiff’s claims. Request No. 2 seeks investigation and resulting discipline taken regarding Rick Meyers sexual harassment of Plaintiff. The supporting affidavit claims that she reported the harassment, and County’s failure to take proper action regarding the report is material pattern and practice evidence. The affidavit does not contain any information regarding when the report was made, who the report was made to, and whether there was any investigation. Without a plausible factual foundation establishing that there was no investigation, Plaintiff failed to establish that the documents sought are material pattern and practice evidence. Request Nos. 12 and 13 seek investigation and resulting discipline regarding Fleet Services Supervisor Sergio Gonzalez’s sexual harassment and Sergeant Darren Brady’s sexual harassment of third persons. The supporting affidavit states only that County’s failure to take proper action regarding the reports is material pattern and practice evidence. The affidavit does not set forth that County failed to investigate the harassment, or even that a report was made regarding the either incident of alleged harassment. Thus the affidavit does not set forth any plausible factual showing of materiality, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 1" 20475 8 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Y. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FAIL. TO COMPLY WITH THE FIVE YEAR LIMITATION FOR PITCHESS PRODUCTIONS Each of Plaintiff’s requests should be denied as overbroad because they are not limited to the previous five years. Evidence Code section 1045 limits the scope of discovery of personnel records where a party seeks records of complaints or discipline against an officer. Only those records that are relevant to the pending litigation are subject to disclosure. Evid. Code § 1045(a). All complaints concerning conduct that occurred more than five years before the event or transaction subject of the current litigation are specifically excluded from disclosure. Evid. Code § 1045(a). Here, Plaintiff first reported Sergeant Hudson’s alleged inappropriate behavior on April 1, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot seek complaints concerning conduct that occurred prior to April 1, 2010. However, Plaintiff’s requests do not contain any limitations as to time. Consequently, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s overly broad requests on the ground that they fail to comply with the five year requirement set forth in Evidence Code section 1045(b). VI. THIS COURT HAS ALREADY FOUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS This Court has already ruled that Plaintiff does not have any right to subjective impressions of conclusions of TA investigating officers. During the November 22, 2017 hearing on Plaintift’s first Pitchess motion, this Court ruled that investigating officer’s subjective impressions and thoughts would not be admissible at trial, and therefore any impressions or interpretations or analysis contained in full investigative reports must be redacted. Mead Decl. at 94, Exh. C (Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 22, 2017) at p. 2:4-3:3, 6:14-18. San Jose v. Superior Court, (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 55-57, makes clear that the only items subject to disclosure are the outcomes of investigations and not verbatim reports or other records of the investigation which would show thought processes, factual inferences and deductions. See also Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal. App.4th 1079, 1088 (denying a civil plaintiff’s request for portions of the Internal Affairs report in which the investigation officer provides subjective impressions and analysis). 20475 9 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Plaintiff nevertheless asks this Court to ignore its own rulings, as well as the holdings in San Jose and Haggerty, and find that Plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of documents reflecting impressions, analysis and conclusions, “because this content may be probative of retaliatory pretext.” Motion at 13:22-24. Plaintiff does not set forth any plausible factual basis whatsoever to suggest how reports regarding County’s investigations into County employees other than Plaintiff regarding misconduct that is not the subject of Plaintiff’s lawsuit could be probative of retaliatory conduct or pretext in regards to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not set forth a factual basis to support her claim that subjective analysis in the requested reports are material because no such factual basis exists. In the unlikely event that this Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied the materiality requirement for the requested documents, County requests that this Court not permit the production of investigating officer’s subjective analysis and conclusions. VII. ANY DISCLOSURE ORDERED MUST BE NARROWLY TAILORED AND MADE PURSUANT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER A. Even Assuming Plaintiff Has Somehow Satisfied Her Burden Under Section 1043, This Court Should Conduct an In-Camera Inspection Prior to Production of Any Pitchess Materials Even assuming arguendo that the Plaintiff has somehow satisfied her burden under section 1043, this Court must nonetheless conduct an in camera review of the materials before permitting any production. An in camera review of documents must take place before any documents are produced to Plaintiff. See Evid. Code § 1045(b) (“In determining relevance, the court shall examine the information in chambers in conformity with Section 915”). When a court is ruling on a claim of privilege under Article 9 (commencing with Section 1040) . . . and is unable to do so without requiring disclosure of the information claimed to be privileged, the court may require the person from whom disclosure is sought or the person authorized to claim the privilege, or both, to disclose the information in chambers out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and any other persons as the person authorized to claim the privilege is willing to have present. If the judge determines that the information is privileged, neither the judge nor any other person may ever disclose, without the consent of a person authorized to permit disclosure, what was disclosed in the course of the proceedings in chambers. Evid. Code § 915(b). 20475 10 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION eo R N N n RA W N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m p m em N O nt RA W N = O O R N S R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 The California Supreme Court has recognized that there is no constitutional right of a plaintiff to be present at an in camera hearing where sensitive and possibly privileged information may be revealed. People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 302. Therefore, if this Court grants any portion of Plaintiff’s motion, it should examine the material sought in camera outside of the presence of Plaintiff and her attorney. Additionally, should the Court order any Pifchess materials disclosed, the disclosure should be ordered to take place fifteen days after the in-camera inspection to give the County and any relevant peace officer an opportunity to prepare and file a writ petition (if necessary). See Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118. B. Any Production Ordered Should be Narrowly Tailored This Court should not order wholesale disclosure of the broad categories of documents that Plaintiff has requested. If any documents are ordered disclosed, they must be narrowly tailored to support Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. See Evid. Code § 1045 C. This Court Must Issue a Protective Order for Any Pitchess Material Ordered Produced If Pitchess material is ordered disclosed, “[t]he court shall . . . order that the records disclosed or discovered may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” Evid. Code § 1045(e) (emphasis added); see also San Jose, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 52- 53. Furthermore, Evidence Code section 1045(d) allows this Court to make any orders necessary to protect the officer or agency from unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression. If this Court grants Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion in any part, County requests that disclosure be made pursuant to the following protective order: I. Plaintiff’s counsel alone will have custody, control and access to the information; 2 Plaintiff’s counsel will be prohibited from releasing, disseminating or sharing the information with anyone, including Plaintiff, with the exception of any other attorneys or investigators and/or experts working on the case; 3. Plaintiff’s counsel may not make copies of the information; 4. The information obtained is only to be used in connection with this case and the 20475 11 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 material shall be returned to County at the conclusion of the case; and 5. The information released cannot be stored in any type of information retrieval system. VII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, County respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Pitchess motion. In the event this Court is inclined to order the production of any records, County requests that this Court conduct an appropriate in camera review first and order the disclosure of only those documents that are encompassed by the relevant statutes and Pitchess. Moreover, this Court should enter an appropriate protective order to restrict the dissemination of any confidential documents or information that may ultimately be disclosed. DATED: February 28, 2019 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP SSICA J. MEAD TOMAS A. GUTERRES Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [erroneously sued as "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"] and JEFF HUDSON 20475 12 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION \o oe | a wn = w No p- No [N d Nd No No No No No p- pt p- p- pd pd pd pd pt pd | a wn +a w [\ -_ < \o oe | a wn = w [ p- <= 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 DECLARATION OF JESSICA J. MEAD I, Jessica J. Mead, declare as follows: I. I am an attorney licensed to practice in California and an associate with the firm of Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP, attorneys of record in this matter for Defendant County of Los Angeles and Jeffrey Hudson. I make this declaration in support of Defendant County of Los Angeles’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for production of Pitchess documents. The following is based upon my personal knowledge, and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify as follows. 2 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of County’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. 3 Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of County’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the report’s transcript of proceedings held on November 22, 2017. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 28" day of February, 2019, in South Pasadena, California. SSICA J. MEAD 20475 13 COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “PITCHESS” MOTION EXHIBIT A A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Tomas A. Guterres, Esq., (State Bar No. 152729) Jessica J. Mead, Esq., (State Bar No. 299050) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 1100 EI Centro Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 Exempt from Payment of Filing Fee (626) 243-1100 - FAX (626) 243-1111 Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103. Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [erroneously sued as "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"] and JEFF HUDSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT REGINA CRENSHAW, an individual, CASE NO. BC652399 [Assigned to Judge Deirdre Hill, Dept. 49] Plaintiff, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, a Governmental Entity, and JEFF HUDSON, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Complaint Filed: 03/03/2017 Trial Date: 09/26/2019 N a N r N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N e N e N e Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, REGINA CRENSHAW RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SET NUMBER: THREE TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW AND TO HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant, County of Los Angeles, (“Responding Party” or “County”) hereby provides responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three), propounded by Plaintiff, Regina Crenshaw, as follows: 11 11 11 20475 1 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This responding party has not completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to and specifically known by this responding party. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently-discovered fact(s) at the time of trial. These responses are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of the responding party in relation to further discovery. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Identify each employee (In accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling, a rough transcript of which is attached hereto) found by the County to be untruthful but were not sent a notice of intent to terminate. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “in accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling”, in that the interrogatory does not identify that portion of the ruling being referenced. County also objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “found by the County to be untruthful.” County also objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. County further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it is not limited as to time, scope, or department. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and based on County’s understanding of the interrogatory, County responds as follows: County has been unable to identify any employee that would be responsive to this inquiry at this time. Discovery is continuing. 20475 2 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Identify each employee (In accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling, a rough transcript of which is attached hereto) who has been found by the County to be untruthful but allowed to continue to work the field. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “in accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling”, in that the interrogatory does not identify that portion of the ruling being referenced. County also objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “found by the County to be untruthful” and “work in the field.” County also objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. County further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it is not limited as to time, scope, or department. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and based on County’s understanding of the interrogatory, County responds as follows: Regina Crenshaw. Discovery is continuing. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Identify each employee (In accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling, a rough transcript of which is attached hereto) who was found to not have properly reported damage to their Department issued vehicles. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “in accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling”, in that the interrogatory does not identify that portion of the ruling being referenced. County also objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “found to not have properly reported damage” and vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the undefined term “Department.” County also objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the 20475 3 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of 2 Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges 3 provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. County 4 further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it is 5 not limited as to time, scope, or department. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and 6 based on County’s understanding of the interrogatory, County responds as follows: Regina 7 Crenshaw, Investigator 1, Investigator 2 and Investigator 3. Discovery is continuing. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 9 Identify each employee (In accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling, a rough transcript 10 || of which is attached hereto) found by the County to be untruthful regarding damage to their 11 || Department issued vehicles which they did not properly report. 12 {// 13 |{// 14 |{// 15 ({// 16 |{// 17 |({/// 18 |{/// 19 ({// 20 ||/// 21 ||//] 22 ||] 23 ||] 24 ||//] 25 ||] 26 ||/// 27 || 28 |[/// COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 20475 4 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “in accordance with the Court’s 12/05/18 ruling”, in that the interrogatory does not identify that portion of the ruling being referenced. County also objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “found by the County to be untruthful” and vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the undefined term “Department.” County also objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. County further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it is not limited as to time, scope, or department. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and based on County’s understanding of the interrogatory, County responds as follows: Regina Crenshaw. Discovery is continuing. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 DATED: January 23, 2019 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP SSICA J. MEAD TOMAS A. GUTERRES Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [erroneously sued as "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"] and JEFF HUDSON 20475 5 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 Lo 0 N N Sa n t A W N N O N N N N N N O N N e m em e m em em e m ed e m p d ed N A G n A W N = S 0 0 N N S N N D EA W N = O 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 E! Centro Street So Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626)243-1111 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed by the County of Los Angeles. I reviewed the foregoing COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW'’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE based upon the information supplied to me by various employees of the County, and others concerned with the subject matter of the within action. I am informed and believe the matters stated therein are true and on that ground allege that the matters stated therein are true to the best of my information and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on J... 22" ,2019 at Los Angeles, California. TERISA CARVER 20475 6 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) SS. County of Los Angeles ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Eric A. Panitz, Esq. Matthew S. McNicholas, Esq. Panitz Law Group, APC Abel P. Nair, Esq. 18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700 McNicholas & McNicholas LLP Cerritos, CA 90703 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 (562) 924-7800 / Fax: (562) 924-7801 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ep@djplawyers.com (310) 474-1582 / Fax: (310) 475-7871 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW msm@mcnicholaslaw.com >] o o [x] [1] apn@mcnicholaslaw.com bml @mcnicholaslaw.com ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in South Pasadena, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at South Pasadena, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena, California. BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List on: (Date) at (Time) FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. (BY FACSIMILE) - I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (626) 243-1111 indicated all pages were transmitted. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressees). Executed on January 23, 2019 at South Pasadena, California. (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) - I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Kristian M. Eulloqui kfarias@ccmslaw.com 20475 7 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 3 EXHIBIT B A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Tomas A. Guterres, Esq., (State Bar No. 152729) Jessica J. Mead, Esq., (State Bar No. 299050) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 1100 EI Centro Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 Exempt from Payment of Filing Fee (626) 243-1100 - FAX (626) 243-1111 Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103. Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [erroneously sued as "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"] and JEFF HUDSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT REGINA CRENSHAW, an individual, CASE NO. BC652399 [Assigned to Judge Deirdre Hill, Dept. 49] Plaintiff, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, a Governmental Entity, and JEFF HUDSON, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Complaint Filed: 03/03/2017 Trial Date: 09/26/2019 N a N r N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N e N e N e Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, REGINA CRENSHAW RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SET NUMBER: TWO TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW AND TO HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant, County of Los Angeles, (“Responding Party” or “County”) hereby provides responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two), propounded by Plaintiff, Regina Crenshaw, as follows: 11 11 11 20475 1 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This responding party has not completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to and specifically known by this responding party. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently-discovered fact(s) at the time of trial. These responses are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of the responding party in relation to further discovery. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State all facts which support your affirmative defenses. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney client privileged, attorney work product doctrine, Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. County also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for pre-mature disclosure of expert discovery. County further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it ignores the requirement that each interrogatory be separately set forth and full and complete in and of itself by requesting “all facts which support your affirmative defenses.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060(c)-(d). County also objects that this interrogatory as phrased calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding said objections, and subject thereto, County responds as follows: Subject to and without waving the foregoing, County responds as follows: As set forth in the January 24, 2017 notice of 15 day suspension, Plaintiff was suspended without pay for 15 days from her position as a Senior Investigator based on her failure to report damage to the County vehicle assigned to her, and subsequent misleading statements surrounding the circumstances under which she attempted to repair the County vehicle in order to conceal the 20475 2 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 damage from the Department. Plaintiffs’ conduct was in violation of Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation Policy Manual section 600.2(a), 600.2(e), 602.2.1, 602.5.1, 602.7; of Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation Policy Manual section 314.3.5(aa), 314.3.5(cc), Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Personnel Polices Handbook section 8.01.00, 8.01.02, and Civil Service Rule 18.031. As a sworn peace officer, Plaintiff’s credibility is critical to her suitability to carry out the duties and responsibilities of her position. Plaintiff’s conduct violated office and County policy and tarnished her credibility. Plaintiff damaged a County vehicle and employed an unauthorized person to perform unapproved work on the County vehicle. Plaintiff also, on more than one occasion, provided misleading statements when asked about the circumstances surrounding the repairs made to her vehicle. Plaintiff’s attempt to conceal the damage to the vehicle and her contradictory statements to management and experts demonstrates a disregard for policy, sound judgment, and honesty. As an investigator, Plaintiff is required to gather facts and report them accurately. In addition, Plaintiff is required to be honest and trustworthy in her dealings with co-workers and supervisors. Plaintiff’s misconduct caused the Department to question her trustworthiness and judgment. Discovery is continuing. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify all witnesses that support your affirmative defenses. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney client privileged, attorney work product doctrine, Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. County also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for pre-mature disclosure of expert discovery. County further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it ignores the requirement that each interrogatory be separately set forth and full and complete in and of itself by requesting “all witnesses which support your affirmative defenses.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060(c)-(d). County also objects that this interrogatory as phrased calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding said objections, 20475 3 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N and subject thereto, County responds as follows: Chief John Neu, Julie Dixon Silva and Deputy Chief Kris Carter participated in the decision to issue a Notice of 15-Day Suspension to Plaintiff. Greg Karchuc, Sgt. Maro, Plaintiff, Henry Escalera, Sergio Gonzalez and Michael Williams have knowledge of the facts that gave rise to the decision to issue a 15 day Notice of Suspension to Plaintiff. Discovery is continuing. oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State all facts regarding your alleged legitimate business reasons for taking the actions against Plaintiff which you currently now have knowledge of. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “taking the actions against Plaintiff” and “currently know have knowledge of” in that the interrogatory fails to identify what actions are being referred to. County also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound as phrased. County understands this interrogatory to refer to the notice of 15 day suspension sent to Plaintiff on January 24,2017. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and/or confidential information. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. Further, information under this interrogatory must be requested under a Pitchess motion. Subject to and without waving the foregoing, County responds as follows: As set forth in the January 24, 2017 notice of 15 day suspension, Plaintiff was suspended without pay for 15 days from her position as a Senior Investigator based on her failure to report damage to the County vehicle assigned to her, and subsequent misleading statements surrounding the circumstances under which she attempted to repair the County vehicle in order to conceal the damage from the Department. Plaintiffs’ conduct was in violation of Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation Policy Manual section 600.2(a), 600.2(e), 602.2.1, 602.5.1, 602.7; of Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation Policy MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 20475 4 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 Manual section 314.3.5(aa), 314.3.5(cc), Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Personnel Polices Handbook section 8.01.00, 8.01.02, and Civil Service Rule 18.031. As a sworn peace officer, Plaintiff’s credibility is critical to her suitability to carry out the duties and responsibilities of her position. Plaintiff’s conduct violated office and County policy and tarnished her credibility. Plaintiff damaged a County vehicle and employed an unauthorized person to perform unapproved work on the County vehicle. Plaintiff also, on more than one occasion, provided misleading statements when asked about the circumstances surrounding the repairs made to her vehicle. Plaintiff’s attempt to conceal the damage to the vehicle and her contradictory statements to management and experts demonstrates a disregard for policy, sound judgment, and honesty. As an investigator, Plaintiff is required to gather facts and report them accurately. In addition, Plaintiff is required to be honest and trustworthy in her dealings with co-workers and supervisor. Plaintiff’s misconduct caused the Department to question her trustworthiness and judgment. In deciding to issue a 15 day suspension, Plaintiff’s long work history and lack of prior discipline and fact she admitted she was wrong in her recorded statement to Internal Affairs was considered. Discovery is continuing. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Identify all witnesses who would support your alleged legitimate business reasons for taking the actions against Plaintiff which you currently now have knowledge of. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “taking the actions against Plaintiff” and “currently know have knowledge of” in that the interrogatory fails to identify what actions are being referred to. County also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound as phrased. County understands this interrogatory to refer to the notice of 15 day suspension sent to Plaintiff on January 24,2017. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and/or confidential information. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 20475 5 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. Further, information under this interrogatory must be requested under a Pitchess motion. Subject to and without waving the foregoing, County responds as follows: Chief John Neu, Julie Dixon Silva and Deputy Chief Kris Carter participated in the decision to issue a Notice of 15-Day Suspension to Plaintiff. Greg Karchuc, Sgt. Maro, Plaintiff, Henry Escalera, Sergio Gonzalez and Michael Williams have knowledge of the facts that gave rise to the decision to issue a 15 day Notice of Suspension to Plaintiff. Discovery is continuing. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Identify all documents which would support your alleged legitimate business reasons for taking the actions against Plaintiff which you currently now have knowledge of RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Objection. County objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase “taking the actions against Plaintiff” and “currently know have knowledge of” in that the interrogatory fails to identify what actions are being referred to. County also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound as phrased. County understands this interrogatory to refer to the notice of 15 day suspension sent to Plaintiff on January 24,2017. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and/or confidential information. County objects to this interrogatory to the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and/or the Official Information privilege of Evidence Code §§ 1040, et seq. and Government Code §§ 6254 and 6275, et seq., and/or privileges provided under Evidence Code §§ 1043, 1044, and 1046, Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7. Further, information under this interrogatory must be requested under a Pitchess motion. Subject to and without waving the foregoing, County responds as follows: January 24, 2017 Notice of 15 Day Suspension; Memorandum from Sgt. Maro to Chief Neu; Photos taken by Sgt. Maro; Memorandum from Crenshaw to Chief Neu; Photos taken by Henry Escalera; Audio Recordings of Interviews of Greg Karchuc, Sgt. Maro, Plaintiff, Henry Escalera, Sergio Gonzalez; Vehicle Condition Report; BOI Policy Manual Section 600; BOI Policy Manual Section 314.3; LADA Personnel Policies Handbook Sections 8.01.00, 8.01.02, Civil Service Rule 20475 6 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 18.031. Discovery is continuing. DATED: January 23, 2019 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 20475 By: SSICA J. MEAD TOMAS A. GUTERRES Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [erroneously sued as "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"] and JEFF HUDSON 7 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 Lo 0 NN a nt A W N N O N O N N N N N O N e e pm em pe d ed em N S n n A W N = O 0 N N N A W N = o 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street Sa Pasadena, CA 81030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (628) 243-1111 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed by the County of Los Angeles. I reviewed the foregoing COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW'’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO based upon the information supplied to me by various employees of the County, and others concerned with the subject matter of the within action. I am informed and believe the matters stated therein or true and on that ground allege that the matters stated therein are true to the best of my information and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Juan, 22" , 2019 at Los Angeles, California. bed. Le. TERISA CARVER 20475 8 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 A W O N oe LL J S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) SS. County of Los Angeles ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Eric A. Panitz, Esq. Matthew S. McNicholas, Esq. Panitz Law Group, APC Abel P. Nair, Esq. 18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700 McNicholas & McNicholas LLP Cerritos, CA 90703 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 (562) 924-7800 / Fax: (562) 924-7801 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ep@djplawyers.com (310) 474-1582 / Fax: (310) 475-7871 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW msm@mcnicholaslaw.com >] o o [x] [1] apn@mcnicholaslaw.com bml @mcnicholaslaw.com ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in South Pasadena, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at South Pasadena, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena, California. BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List on: (Date) at (Time) FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. (BY FACSIMILE) - I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (626) 243-1111 indicated all pages were transmitted. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressees). Executed on January 23, 2019 at South Pasadena, California. (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) - I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Kristian M. Eulloqui kfarias@ccmslaw.com 20475 9 COLA RSPS TO PLTF SPECIAL ROGS 2 EXHIBIT C gu sd Ww N D R 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF DEIRDRE HILL DEPARTMENT NO. 49 HON. DEIRDRE HILL, JUDGE REGINA CRENSHAW, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF, ) ) ) ) VS. ) CASE NO. BC652399 ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, A ) GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, AND JEFF ) HUDSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES ) 1 THROUGH 100, ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS. REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS, LLP BY: ABEL P. NAIR, ESQ. 10866 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 50024 310.474.1582 APN@MCNICHOLASLAW.COM FOR THE DEFENDANT: COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, LLP BY: LISA L. PETERSON, ESQ. 750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 400 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92868 714.823.4100 LPETERSON@CCMSLAW. COM REPORTED BY: CESAR RODRIGUEZ, CSR NO. 13269 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NUMBER: BC652399 CASE NAME: REGINA CRENSHAW VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES, CA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 DEPARTMENT NO. 49 HON. DEIRDRE HILL, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED) REPORTER: CESAR RODRIGUEZ, CSR NO. 13269 TIME: 9:32 A.M. THE COURT: CRENSHAW VERSUS COUNTY. MR. NAIR: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ABEL NAIR ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW. MS. PETERSON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. LISA PETERSON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. CRYSTAL, CAN YOU PRINT ME THE TENTATIVE. I MADE CHANGES TO THE PREVIOUS ONE. I'LL HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE. MS. PETERSON: IS THE TENTATIVE RULING THAT WE WERE JUST HANDED THE UPDATED VERSION? THE COURT: I BELIEVE SO. IT SAYS THAT THERE'S GOOD CAUSE FOR IN CAMERA HEARING, EXCEPT FOR NUMBER SIX? MS. PETERSON: YES. CORRECT. THE COURT: OKAY. MS. PETERSON: ACTUALLY, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS A FEW ITEMS. LOOKS LIKE THE BULK OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ARE SEPARATED INTO THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. AND THE TWO I WANT TO ADDRESS WERE THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE INVESTIGATIVE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPORTS, AND ALSO THE COPIES OF THE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE INTERVIEWS, WHICH I DON'T SEE THAT IT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE TENTATIVE. SO I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THAT AS WELL. SO FOR THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS, I GUESS THIS COURT -- I APOLOGIZE. I ONLY HAD A FEW MINUTES TO READ THIS. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS COURT, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING, IS ALLOWING THE REPORTS TO COME IN BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS AND THOUGHTS WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, SO THEREFORE, THIS COURT IS INDICATING THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE REPORT. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? THE COURT: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE ITEMS THAT AREN'T ADMISSIBLE. MS. PETERSON: WHICH IS CATEGORY 67? THE COURT: YES. BUT IN TERMS OF THE IMPRESSIONS, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ADMISSIBLE. BUT THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT, OTHER THAN THAT, WOULD BE DISCOVERABLE. MS. PETERSON: OKAY. SO IN THIS INSTANCE THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DID UNDERGO AT LEAST TWO INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE THREE DIFFERENT PEACE OFFICERS. AND THOSE CONTAINED FULL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS WHICH INCLUDED THE INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER'S OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS AND SUMMARIES OF THE INTERVIEWS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS. I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD WHAT EXACTLY WOULD BE DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE REDACTED BEFORE TURNING IT OVER. THE COURT: IMPRESSIONS WOULD BE REDACTED. BUT THE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATEMENTS AND THE SUMMARIES, IF THEY'RE JUST SUMMARIES, WOULD BE -- AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HAVE THE INTERPRETATION IN IT -- WOULD BE DISCOVERABLE. MS. PETERSON: OKAY. SO THAT ACTUALLY GOES TO MY NEXT REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHICH IS THE SUMMARIES OF THE INTERVIEWS AND THE WITNESS STATEMENTS. SO WITH THAT, ACTUALLY, PER WARRICK, PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE SUMMARIES, BECAUSE THAT DOES CONTAIN THE IMPRESSIONS AND IT'S A SUMMARY. AND ALSO, AT MOST THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE WITNESSES, PER WARRICK. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PERSONAL FILES, I -- THE COURT: THE CURRENT NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU PROVIDE THE CURRENT NAME AND ADDRESS. MS. PETERSON: YES. AND I BELIEVE MOST OF THEM ARE STILL EMPLOYED BY THE COUNTY. SO THEY CAN BE CONTACTED THROUGH US, AND WE WILL HELP WITH THE DEPOSITION PROCESS SHOULD THE PLAINTIFF WISH TO DEPOSE THEM. AND THEN THE LAST CHUNK OF DOCUMENTS ARE ALL THE PERSONNEL FILES, WHICH I WILL SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE SO LONG AS THERE'S THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN DISCLOSING ANYTHING IN THE EVENT THAT THIS MATTER WILL BE ACTUALLY ALLOWING ANY DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED SUBJECT TO THE IN CAMERA. SO THAT SHOULD BE IT. THE COURT: ANY THOUGHTS? MR. NAIR: YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES, HAGGERTY SETS FORTH THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE FILES. IT WILL ALLOW US TO PROVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ENGAGED IN A SHAM INVESTIGATION AND WERE NOT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH, AS FURTHER RETALIATION. SO THE WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN SHOULD BE DISCOVERABLE. THE CONCLUSIONS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE GOING TO PUNISH THE OFFICER IS ALSO DISCOVERABLE. ALL THESE THINGS ARE CONTAINED IN THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES. THEY'RE CRITICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THAT THIS INVESTIGATION WAS NOT TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH, IT WAS MORE A RETALIATION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAGGERTY SETS FORTH IN WHY WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO -- NOT JUST LIMITED TO NAMES AND ADDRESSES. THE PLAINTIFFS ALREADY KNOWS THE NAMES OF WITNESSES. IT WOULD GIVE US NOTHING. I MEAN, BASICALLY THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS INTENDED SO WE CAN CONDUCT BASIC DISCOVERY, WHICH WE WOULD NORMALLY, IN ANY EMPLOYMENT, BE ABLE TO GET. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WE'VE SHOWN MATERIALITY. THIS IS DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION. WE WANT IT LIMITED TO THOSE ISSUES. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS, THEY DEAL WITH EXACTLY THAT, INVESTIGATING THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE. IT'S VERY LIMITED. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THE FACTS WERE IN THE INVESTIGATION THAT WERE TAKEN. AND YES, THE PROBLEM WITH JUST GETTING SUMMARIES IS THAT IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN CONTROL OF HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SUMMARIZE CERTAIN RESPONSES FROM WITNESSES. THAT DOES US NO GOOD. WE ACTUALLY WANT THE RECORDED STATEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID. SO IT CAN'T JUST BE A SUMMARY. WE WANT TO KNOW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXACTLY WHAT THESE WITNESSES SAID AT THE TIME SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES. AND THAT SHOULD BE DISCOVERABLE PER HAGGERTY. SO ON TWO PRONGS WE SHOULDN'T JUST BE LIMITED TO NAMES AND ADDRESSES. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE FULL FACTS AS WERE STATED TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AS TO WHAT HAPPENED. AND WE SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO GET THE CONCLUSIONS MADE BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS AS TO WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO OR WHAT WOULD THE RECOMMENDATION PENALTY BE. THOSE THINGS WILL HELP US SHOW THAT IN FACT THE DEPARTMENT WAS RETALIATING FURTHER AGAINST MS. CRENSHAW FOR BRINGING THESE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. THAT IS WHAT OUR COMPLAINT IS ABOUT. IT'S ABOUT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND FURTHER RETALIATION. AND THE DEPARTMENT'S SHAM INVESTIGATION, IF THERE IN FACT IS ONE, THAT WOULD HELP TO PROVE THAT THIS IS FURTHER RETALIATION. THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT IS IF WE GET THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES. SO WHAT IS STATED IN THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES, THE IMPRESSIONS, THE RESPONSES BY WITNESSES AND THE FULL RECORDINGS OF THOSE RESPONSES WE TYPICALLY ALWAYS GET IN THESE CASES. BECAUSE THOSE ITEMS HELP US PROVE THAT IN FACT THERE WAS A SHAM INVESTIGATION AND THAT THERE IS RETALIATION. THE COURT: OKAY. COURT IS GOING TO CONCUR WITH PLAINTIFF ON THIS ISSUE. THE FULL FILE IS GOING TO BE GIVEN. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IS TO ISSUE. PARTIES ARE TO MEET AND CONFER OVER THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. NUMBER SIX WILL NOT BE REVIEWED. I'M NOT SURE WHEN THE DATE FOR THE IN CAMERA INSPECTION WOULD BE. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA? MS. PETERSON: I ACTUALLY WANTED TO ADDRESS AN ITEM, IF I MAY BE ALLOWED. THE COURT: GO AHEAD. MS. PETERSON: I DO WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT AS EARNEST AS THE REQUEST IS BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL, THE SAN JOSE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT CASE SPECIFICALLY MAKES CLEAR THAT THE ONLY ITEM SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE ARE THE OUTCOMES OF INVESTIGATION AND NOT VERBATIM REPORTS OR OTHER RECORDS OF THE INVESTIGATION WHICH WOULD SHOW THOUGHT PROCESSES, FACTUAL INFERENCES AND DEDUCTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT THIS COURT INITIALLY HAD INDICATED, THAT IMPRESSIONS AND THOUGHT PROCESSES OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME BE CLEAR. YOU TWO ARE SAYING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. HE WAS ASKING ABOUT THE WITNESS STATEMENTS THEMSELVES. THE RECORDINGS, THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS, THOSE WILL BE PRODUCED. WHEN YOU SPEAK TO THE ANALYSIS, THAT NEED NOT BE PRODUCED. MS. PETERSON: OKAY. THE COURT: BUT WITH REGARD TO ALL THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS, ET CETERA, THAT NEEDS TO BE PRODUCED. MS. PETERSON: SO IN TERMS OF WHETHER THERE WERE ANY RECORDED AUDIO INTERVIEWS, I'M NOT SURE THERE ARE ANY TRANSCRIBED PORTIONS OF THAT. BUT IS THAT -- THE COURT: YEAH. THAT ALL HAS TO BE GIVEN. MS. PETERSON: IF I CAN TOUCH ON THAT BRIEFLY. I UNDERSTAND PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S POSITION IS THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT A SHAM INVESTIGATION. BUT THEY CAN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALREADY ENSURE THAT PROCESS BY TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF THE THIRD PARTY WITNESSES WHO ARE WITNESSES WHO HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE LITIGATION AND WOULD NOT GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO HAVING THESE ACTUAL INTERVIEWS DOES NO MORE THAN JUST GIVE THEM THE IMPRESSION, THE THOUGHT PROCESS, OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER WHO ARE ASKING THE QUESTION. THE COURT: YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THE WHOLE INTERVIEW. MR. NAIR: AND, YOUR HONOR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE ALSO BEYOND THAT WOULD WANT THE CONCLUSION THAT'S MADE. BECAUSE THAT DETERMINES WHAT THE PENALTY IS, IF THERE IS A PENALTY. SOMETIMES THERE IS NO PENALTY. THAT HELPS US DETERMINE WAS THIS -- BASED ON THOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS, DID THEY COME TO A WRONG DECISION. WE ARE SO ENTITLED TO THAT. BECAUSE WE WANT TO KNOW, WHAT'S THE ULTIMATE DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT? HOW IS THAT -- BASED ON FACTS THAT WE SEE IN THOSE INTERVIEWS, SHOULD THEY HAVE COME TO A DIFFERENT DECISION? IS THAT FURTHER RETALIATION? WE ARE ENTITLED TO THAT. THE COURT: SO WITH REGARD TO THE CONCLUSIONS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SAY? MS. PETERSON: FIRST OF ALL, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT OR ADMISSIBLE. BUT ALSO, THAT INFORMATION CAN ALSO BE LEARNED THROUGH DEPOSING THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT A PIECE OF DOCUMENT. THE COURT: AS TO THAT ISSUE ONLY, I'LL LOOK AT THE CASE LAW MORE CAREFULLY. AND YOU'LL GET MY RULING LATER TODAY. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. IN CAMERA, THE MS. THE HAVE A GOOD DAY. NAIR: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND THE DATE FOR THE I DON'T THINK WE GOT THAT. COURT: I DON'T THINK WE DID. DID YOU HAVE -- PETERSON: SO ARE WE LOOKING -- COURT: YOU HAVE TO TELL ME, IN TERMS OF DOING THE SEARCH, HOW LONG THIS IS GOING TO TAKE AND WHEN SOMEBODY COULD BE AVAILABLE. MS. PETERSON: BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY, IF IT'S OKAY WITH PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL, IF WE COULD PUSH IT TO MAYBE THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 11TH OR DECEMBER 18TH. IT WOULD BE EARLY DECEMBER 18TH. SO BEFORE WE HIT THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY. MR. MS. THOSE TWO THE MS. MR. THE MS. STIPULATE THE MS. MR. DID. MS. JUST NEED MR. NAIR: THAT WOULD BE FINE, YOUR HONOR. PETERSON: AND EVERYTHING BUT DECEMBER 15TH, SO FAR WEEKS WOULD BE FINE. COURT: LET'S SAY DECEMBER 12TH AT 10:30. PETERSON: WORKS FOR ME. NAIR: DECEMBER 12TH AT 10:30. COURT: IN CAMERA INSPECTION, PITCHESS. PETERSON: DO YOU WANT THE PARTIES TO TRY AND TO A LANGUAGE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SUBMIT IT? COURT: YES. PETERSON: GREAT. NAIR: WE MAY HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT. I BELIEVE WE PETERSON: FOR MS. CRENSHAW'S DOCUMENTS. WE MIGHT TO DO A SIMILAR ONE. NAIR: I SEE. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: OKAY. THIS WILL BE ISSUED LATER TODAY AND MAILED OUT TO YOU. MR. NAIR: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. PETERSON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: HAVE A GOOD DAY. (WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 9:51 A.M.) ua d w N D R 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF DEIRDRE HILL DEPARTMENT NO. 49 HON. DEIRDRE HILL, JUDGE REGINA CRENSHAW, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF, VS. CASE NO. BC652399 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, AND JEFF HUDSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, DEFENDANTS. -_- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~- I, CESAR RODRIGUEZ, CSR NO. 13269, COURT REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 9, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2017. DATED THIS 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. --_- CESAR RODRIGUEZ, CSR NO. 10 eo R N N n RA W N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m p m em N O nt RA W N = O O R N S R W N = Oo Ll 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1100 El Centro Street So. Pasadena, CA 91030 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County of Los Angeles ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF “PITCHESS” DOCUMENTS (Evid. Code §§ 1043 et. seq.) on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Eric A. Panitz, Esq. Matthew S. McNicholas, Esq. Panitz Law Group, APC Abel P. Nair, Esq. 18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700 McNicholas & McNicholas LLP Cerritos, CA 90703 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 (562) 924-7800 / Fax: (562) 924-7801 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ep@djplawyers.com (310) 474-1582 / Fax: (310) 475-7871 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW msm@mcnicholaslaw.com apn @mcnicholaslaw.com bmi @mcnicholaslaw.com ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REGINA CRENSHAW [] (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in South Pasadena, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at South Pasadena, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ ] (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena, California. BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY UJ (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List on: (Date) at (Time) [
