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 CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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; applicati on for a writ of mandate. Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Petition granted. Jones & Mayer and Gregor y 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 re quiring the disclosure of two complaints contained in a Montebello officer’s personnel f ile. We conclude petitioner is correct that the material ordered disclosed by the trial c ourt is not relevant to the pending litigation and grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND

Real party in interest Oscar Canalez-Ve ntura was charged with two counts of burglary of a vehicle and two co unts 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 polic e report prepared by De tectives Miranda and

Avila attributed statements to Canalez-Vent ura that he did not make. In the motion, Canalez-Ventura sought discovery of complain ts against the detectives that alleged, among other things, they committ ed acts of dishonesty. On August 1, 2013 , the trial court granted the moti on with respect to complaints relating to allegations of dishonesty. On A ugust 20, the court condu cted 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 discove ry order. We granted petitioner’s request to file, under seal, the complaints ordered disc losed. 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. Cana lez-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 mate rial. It argues the trial cour t 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 ‘s uch information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.’ [Citation.]”]. ) Petitioner contends that

the information ordered disclosed is not rele vant to the underlying case. Once again, petitioner is correct. We have examined the two complaints at issue. Without di vulging the precise nature of the allegations made against Det ective Avila, suffice it to say that neither complainant accused him of enga ging in any dishonest behavior. One stated the detective approached and accused him of be ing intoxicated. It is te lling 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 r ude when he issued a citati on and engaged in harassment because he issued citations ag ainst 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 statem ents during an interview. The trial court erred in ordering the disclosu re of the two complaints.

1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.4 DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue dire cting 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.