Case Number: 22STCV24047    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

BRENT FOSTER BEARDMORE,   Plaintiff, v.   CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, et al.,   Defendants.

Case No:  22STCV24047           Hearing Date:  April 15, 2025 Calendar Number:  1

Plaintiff Brent Foster Beardmore (“Plaintiff”) moves in this Pitchess motion for an order compelling production of certain law enforcement personnel records of Defendant City of El Segundo (the “City”) and the El Segundo Police Department (“ESPD”).

The Court DENIES the motion.

Background

This is an employment case between Plaintiff and Defendants City of El Segundo (the “City”); Darrell George (“George”); and Chief Jaime Bermudez (“Bermudez”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff is a 52-year-old man working as a police officer for the City in ESPD. Bermudez is the Chief of Police and George is the City Manager.

During his career at ESPD, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Field Training Officer (“FTO”), which Plaintiff contends is a very desirable position. Plaintiff served as an FTO for 12 years. The year Plaintiff turned 50, his assignment as FTO was not extended. Plaintiff was replaced by Officer Michael Keltner, who is 16 years younger than Plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to harassment because of his age and was frequently asked when he was retiring.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have created and allowed an environment at ESPD where older employees are not promoted and are encouraged to retire as early as possible, while younger employees are promoted and rewarded with the best assignments even when they do not have the qualifications or experience.

Plaintiff filed this action on July 26, 2022. The operative complaint is now the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which raises claims for (1) age discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) harassment due to age; and (4) retaliation/violation of First Amendment rights.

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a previous Pitchess motion seeking disclosure of documents in the City’s control. This request included documents related to the decision-making process to not extend Plaintiff in the FTO program and to assign a younger candidate. The Court granted the previous Pitchess motion on April 20, 2023. The Court performed in camera review and ordered the disclosure of certain documents. Defendant provided the court-ordered production on May 22, 2023. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff filed this motion on February 24, 2025. Defendants filed an opposition on April 2, 2025. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Legal Standard

“Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. This section does not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office.” (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).)

“(a) In any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records, as follows:

….

(b) The motion shall include all of the following:

(1) Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party seeking discovery or disclosure, the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought, the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard.

(2) A description of the type of records or information sought.

(3) Affidavits 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.”

(Evid. Code, § 1043.)

Penal Code, section 1046 provides additional requirements for cases where excessive force is alleged.

A motion pursuant to section 1043 is known as a Pitchess motion. (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1017.) “On a showing of good cause a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or information in the personnel records of a police officer accused of misconduct against the defendant.” (Id. at p. 1016.) “To determine whether the defendant has established good cause for in-chambers review of an officer’s personnel records, the trial court looks to whether the [requesting party] has established the materiality of the requested information to the pending litigation. The court does that through the following inquiry: [1] Has the defense shown a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense? [2] Is the defense request for Pitchess discovery factually specific and tailored to support its claim of officer misconduct? [3] Will the requested Pitchess discovery support the proposed defense, or is it likely to lead to information that would support the proposed defense? [4] Under what theory would the requested information be admissible at trial?” (Id. at pp. 1026-1027.) “[T]o obtain in-chambers review a defendant need only demonstrate that the scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred.” (Id. at p. 1016.)

When proceeding to in camera review, “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, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Discovery Sought

            Plaintiff seeks a collection of documents that were identified in a privilege log produced by the City dated December 23, 2025. Plaintiff states that the documents begin on page 2 of 18 of the privilege log and lack Bates numbering. The documents include:

(1)  Field Training and Evaluation Reports;

(2)  August Field Training Officer (“FTO”) Meeting Outline;

(3)  Applications of Officers Who Applied to the FTO Program

(4)  Ratings for Applicants

(5)  Emails with Command Staff Meeting Notes

Analysis

Logical Connection

The first category does not appear relevant. Plaintiff contends that the training and evaluation reports could show that the trainers who replaced Plaintiff were not experienced enough or were poor trainers. However, these reports were for Officers Burkholder, Gruenewald, and Ramos – not Keltner, who Plaintiff alleges replaced him. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff contends that the August FTO meeting outline in the second category is relevant because it may go to how the candidates selected over Plaintiff were progressing. Plaintiff contends that the attachment to the email, which discusses a “Final Transition”, may refer to the City moving Plaintiff off of FTO status. But this is simply speculation, and Defendants have presented evidence that the email in question attached templates for reporting transition success or failure to be used for transition reporting. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 11.) The email contained Pitchess information for two officers from 2019 and 2021 (before Plaintiff was replaced) who were not involved in Plaintiff’s FTO assignment. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 11.)

The third category does not appear relevant. Although the motion characterizes these applications as being for the position of FTO, the City provides evidence (and the privilege log itself appears to indicate) that these were applicants for the position of Captain, and not FTO. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 11.)

The City’s May 2023 Pitchess production included the Ratings document listed in the fourth category. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief to contest this issue.

Plaintiff contends that the fifth category, emails with command staff meeting notes, is relevant because it may contain information regarding the reasoning behind choosing other FTO candidates over Plaintiff. Defendants provide evidence that the emails do not discuss any candidates who replaced Plaintiff in the FTO position. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 13.) Rather, the documents appeared in the search because it contained the term “FTO” in the context of a general update on the FTO program. (Pienkos Decl. ¶ 13.)

            The Court therefore determines based on the current record that in camera review is not necessary and denies the motion.