Filed 7/15/14 City of Brawley v. Superior Court CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). Thi s opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL

- FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF BRAWLEY , Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IMPERIAL COUN TY, Respondent; D06 6145 ( Imperial County Super. Ct. No. JCF32751 )

FRANK RODRIGUEZ , Real Part y in Interest.

PROCEEDINGS in mandate after superior court g ranted motion for pretrial discovery

. Raymundo Ayala Cota , Judge. Petition granted in part and denied in part

. Dennis H. Morita, City Attorney, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Timothy Reilly, Imperial County Public Defender, and Jason Gundel , Deputy Public Defender, for Real P arty i n I nterest.2

Petitioner City of Brawley (the City) challenges an order granting the motion of real party in interest Frank Rodriguez for discovery of information in the personnel file of one of its police officers. We grant the petition in part and deny it in part.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKG ROUND Rodriguez is the defendant in a criminal action pending in respondent Imperial County Superior Court. The charges arose out of the discovery of knives and a hypodermic needle in Rodriguez ' s pockets after police officers of the City stopped and
fris ked Rodriquez in response to a 911 call that a man matching his description was pointing a gun at people in a school zone. Claiming that the legality of the search would
be a substantial issue in the case and that the arresting officers had harassed him o n multiple prior occasions by subjecting him to searches and seizures without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, Rodriguez sought discovery of information concerning similar complaints of harassment that might be contained in the arresting
offi cers ' personnel files pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 ( Pitchess ) . Over the City ' s opposition and after reviewing the personnel file s in
chambers , respondent ordered the City to disclose to both Rodrigue z and the People the

name s and contact information of two persons who made complaints of misconduct against one of the arresting officers. The City challenged respondent ' s order by petition for writ of mandate , argu ing Rodriguez did not establish good cause for Pitchess discovery and the People are not entitled to such discovery. We stayed the portion of respondent ' s order directing3

disclosure to the People, solicited and obtained an informal response from Rodriguez , and notified the parties we were considering issuing a peremptor y writ of mandate in the first
instance . ( See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners , Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178

- 180 .)
In his response , Rodriguez contends respondent correctly ordered disclosure of Pitchess
information to him , but he asserts the order di recting disclosure to the People is " not supported by law " and does not oppose vacatur of that portion of the order.
DISCUSSION We agree with the parties that respondent erred by ordering disclosure of Pitchess materials to the People. Our Supreme Court has held " the prosecution has no automatic
entitlement to defense

- initiated Pitchess discovery. " ( Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1046, fn. 6.) Unless the prosecution itself seeks Pitchess discovery and complies with the statutory motion procedure, " peace officer personnel records retain their confidentiality vis

- à

- vis the prosecution. " ( Id. at p. 1046.) Since the prosecution
did not make a Pitchess motion, it is not entitled to receive the information respondent
ordered disclosed to Ro driguez.
We further conclude issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is appropriate b ecause the material facts are not in disp ute, the law is well

- settled, and Rodriguez ha s conceded respondent ' s error . (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1088; Lewis v.
S uperior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1240

- 1241; Fontaine v. Superior Court ( 2009 )
175 Cal .App .4th 830 , 842 .)4 DISPOSITION Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondent to vacate the portion of its order of May 20, 2014 , that Pitchess discovery material s be disclosed to the People

. In all
other res pects, the petition is denied. The stay previously issued by this court is
dissolved. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ proceedi ng. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a)(1)(B).)

HUFFM AN, J.
WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BENKE, Acting P. J.