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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

COUNTY,

Respondent;

 D066145

 (Imperial County

 Super. Ct. No. JCF32751)

FRANK RODRIGUEZ,

Real Party in Interest.

PROCEEDINGS in mandate after superior court granted 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 Party in Interest.
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 BACKGROUND

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 

frisked 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 on 

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 

officers' personnel files pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

(Pitchess). Over the City's opposition and after reviewing the personnel files in 

chambers, respondent ordered the City to disclose to both Rodriguez and the People the 

names 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, arguing

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 directing 
3

disclosure to the People, solicited and obtained an informal response from Rodriguez, and 

notified the parties we were considering issuing a peremptory 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 directing 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 Rodriguez.

We further conclude issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is 

appropriate because the material facts are not in dispute, the law is well-settled, and 

Rodriguez has conceded respondent's error. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1088; Lewis v. 

Superior 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 materials be disclosed to the People. In all 

other respects, the petition is denied. The stay previously issued by this court is 

dissolved. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ proceeding. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.493(a)(1)(B).)

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BENKE, Acting P. J.