Filed 11/13/13 Montebello Police Dept. v. Super. Ct. CA2/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FOUR 

MONTEBELLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

OSCAR CANALEZ-VENTURA, 

 Real Party in Interest. 

 B251106 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. 3EA02757) 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; application for a writ of mandate. Mildred 

Escobedo, Judge. Petition granted. 

 Jones & Mayer and Gregory P. Palmer for Petitioner. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 

 Janice Fukai, Alternate Public Defender, Thomas J. Burns, and Hyun S. Im for 

Real Party in Interest. 
2 

 Petitioner Montebello Police Department filed the instant petition for a writ of 

mandate challenging the trial court’s order requiring the disclosure of two complaints 

contained in a Montebello officer’s personnel file. We conclude petitioner is correct that 

the material ordered disclosed by the trial court is not relevant to the pending litigation 

and grant the petition. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Real party in interest Oscar Canalez-Ventura was charged with two counts of 

burglary of a vehicle and two counts of petty theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 484, subd. (a).) 

He filed a discovery motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. 

Counsel’s declaration alleged that the police report prepared by Detectives Miranda and 

Avila attributed statements to Canalez-Ventura that he did not make. In the motion, 

Canalez-Ventura sought discovery of complaints against the detectives that alleged, 

among other things, they committed acts of dishonesty. 

 On August 1, 2013, the trial court granted the motion with respect to complaints 

relating to allegations of dishonesty. On August 20, the court conducted an in camera 

hearing and examined the detectives’ personnel files. It ordered the disclosure of two 

complaints against Detective Avila. Nothing in Detective Miranda’s file was deemed 

discoverable. 

 On September 10, 2013, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandate and sought 

an immediate stay of the trial court’s discovery order. We granted petitioner’s request to 

file, under seal, the complaints ordered disclosed. On September 19, we issued a 

temporary stay of the trial court’s order and an alternative writ of mandate directing the 

trial court to vacate its discovery order or show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate 

should not issue ordering it to do so. Canalez-Ventura filed a return to the writ and 

petitioner filed a reply. 
3 

DISCUSSION 

 Petitioner does not dispute that complaints alleging that Detective Avila engaged 

in acts of dishonesty are material. It argues the trial court was required to examine the 

detective’s records in camera and disclose only those materials, if any, that were relevant 

to the pending litigation. Petitioner is correct. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 

1226 [after examining records in chambers, subject to statutory exceptions, “the trial 

court should then disclose to the defendant ‘such information [that] is relevant to the 

subject matter involved in the pending litigation.’ [Citation.]”].) Petitioner contends that 

the information ordered disclosed is not relevant to the underlying case. Once again, 

petitioner is correct. 

 We have examined the two complaints at issue. Without divulging the precise 

nature of the allegations made against Detective Avila, suffice it to say that neither 

complainant accused him of engaging in any dishonest behavior. One stated the detective 

approached and accused him of being intoxicated. It is telling that the complainant did 

not deny that he was. Instead, he claimed the detective did not give him a blood alcohol 

test, failed to read him his Miranda rights,1

 and cut his lip during a struggle. The second 

complainant alleged Avila was rude when he issued a citation and engaged in harassment 

because he issued citations against her on two occasions. 

Simply put, neither complaint is relevant to the issues involved in real party’s 

case. Whether Detective Avila failed to offer a blood alcohol test, allegedly used 

unnecessary force, or was rude to a citizen has no bearing on real party’s claim that the 

detective falsely reported real party’s statements during an interview. The trial court 

erred in ordering the disclosure of the two complaints. 

 1

 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 
4 

DISPOSITION 

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its 

August 20, 2013 order granting real party’s discovery motion with respect to the two 

complaints in Detective Avila’s personnel file. The alternative writ is discharged and the 

temporary stay is lifted. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 SUZUKAWA, J. 

We concur: 

 EPSTEIN, P. J. 

 WILLHITE, J.