PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
Five Questions
Five Questions: 1. What is a peace officer personnel file record? 2. What is my Police Department supposed to do when someone seeks peace officer personnel file records in a civil (or criminal) case? 3. What are the normal exemptions from the Pitchess procedure (bypasses)? 4. What happens when the officer is adverse to the Police Department in a civil lawsuit? 5. What protection does the officer or agency have in a federal court lawsuit?
The Pitchess Privileges: Set of state laws that control how Peace Officer Personnel File records can be Discovered or Disclosed. Cal. Evid. Code 1040-1048 Penal Code 832.5-832.8 Pitchess v. Superior Ct. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
The Pitchess Privileges: Peace Officer Records Presumed to be Confidential Unless the Pitchess procedures are followed: Peace Officer Records May Not Be Discovered or Disclosed. Unless an Exception Applies.
Pitchess Privileges Primer: 1. What is a Personnel File Record?
What is a Personnel File?
What is a Personnel File?
What is a Personnel File?
What is a Personnel File?
#1 Mistake Public Entities and Officers Make = Assuming That If You Put It in a Folder Marked Personnel File Then the Pitchess Privilege Applies
1. Personnel File Defined WHAT it is NOT WHERE it is kept
1. Peace Officer Personnel File Records-Info personal data including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses or similar information medical history election of employee benefits employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline
1. Peace Officer Personnel File Records-Info appraisal or discipline complaints, or investigations of complaints concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or perceived... that pertains to the manner in which the officer performed his/her duties And any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for the officer
Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Q: If the officer s Pitchess-protected information is obtainable from another source, is a state court litigant still required to go through the Pitchess procedure before conducting discovery or making disclosure of such information?
Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Yes. The Pitchess privileges apply to personnel file information even if the information at issue is contained or otherwise obtainable from sources outside of the peace officer s physical or digital personnel file.
Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Q: A state court civil litigant seeks to depose the officer about the officer s disciplinary history. Must the litigant get a Pitchess order before the officer is required to answer those deposition questions?
Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Yes. The Pitchess statutes protect personnel records and information from such records because there would be no purpose to protecting such information in the personnel records if it could be obtained by the simple expedient of asking the officers for their disciplinary history orally.
Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Do the Pitchess statutes control how long a public entity must retain an officer s personnel file records? No Yes The Pitchess statutes do not contain specific requirements about a minimum or maximum length of time for record retention, but... Because records related to complaints are not discoverable if they relate to events more than 5 years before the date of the incident at issue in the state court case... Public entities should consider limiting their peace officer personnel records retention to ~5 years worth. See Cal. Evid. Code 1045(b)(1); Cal. Penal Code 832.5(b).
2. What is my Police Dept. Supposed to Do When a Litigant Seeks Peace Officer Personnel File Records-Information?
2. What to Do With Pitchess Discovery? Pitchess Privilege Issues Tend to Arise: When a State Court Civil or Criminal Litigant Tries to Discredit a Peace Officer When a Peace Officer is Adverse to his own or former Public Entity/Police Department When a Non-Party Seeks Protected Officer Info
2. What to Do With Pitchess Discovery? Regardless of Whether the State Court Lawsuit is Criminal or Civil... The Pitchess Procedure is the EXCLUSIVE means for discovery-disclosure of peace officer personnel file records or information. Unless an EXCEPTION Applies... (more on that later).
2. Overview of the Pitchess Procedure Public Entity/Police Dept. Should Verify: Notice-Standing and Service Rules were Followed Threshold for In Camera Review was Met Specificity Good Cause Materiality (Manifest Necessity) Reasonable Belief re Possession-Existence Court Properly Conducts an In Camera Review Court Properly Limits and Protects Discovery and/or Disclosure
2. Pitchess Motion Procedure: Notice-Standing and Service Issues
2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service Litigant Must File a Pitchess Motion in Court Serve Notice of Pitchess Motion on the Agency With Custody of the Personnel File Litigant Should Also Serve Notice of the Pitchess Motion on the Officer Whose Records Are Sought When the Officer is a Party to the Action
2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service The Custodial Agency Must Notify the Officer Whose Records Are Being Sought by the Motion Both the Officer and the Custodial Agency Have Standing to Oppose the Pitchess Motion
2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service But, Only the Custodial Agency Has the Right to Waive a Hearing on the Pitchess Motion and Proceed Directly to the In Camera Review Phase
2. Pitchess Motion Procedure: Threshold Requirements
2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Officer Personnel File Records and Information are Presumed to be Confidential. To Overcome that Presumption (and get to the In Camera review phase), the State Court Litigant Must Meet the Pitchess Procedure s Threshold requirements.
2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Threshold Elements to Overcome Pitchess Confidentiality Presumption: Specificity Good Cause Materiality & Manifest Necessity Reasonable Belief re Possession- Existence
2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Specificity Requirement Describe the Type of Records sought Identify the Officer whose records-information is/are sought Identify the Governmental Agency which has custody-control Rationale: To prevent fishing expeditions for info that is irrelevant to the pending issues of the case.
2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Good Cause Requirement Pitchess Motion Must Include: Sworn Declaration Plausible Factual Scenario of Officer Misconduct Theory of Admissibility
2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Materiality & Manifest Necessity Requirement Pitchess Motion Must: Materiality Show a Logical Link Between the Information Sought and the Claims At Issue Manifest Necessity Show that Without a Pitchess Order, the Information Sought Is Essential and Cannot Be Discovered or Disclosed from Non-Privileged Sources
Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Possession Requirement Pitchess Motion Must State: Reasonable Belief that the Government Agency Specifically Identified Has Custody At the In Camera Review Hearing, IF the Agency Does NOT Actually Have the Records-Information Sought, It Must Demonstrate Such Absence to the Court
2. Pitchess Motion Procedure: The In Camera Review
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Once the Moving Party Meets the Pitchess Threshold, the Court MUST Review the Personnel File Records of the Officer Identified In Camera In Camera = In Chambers, NOT in Open Court
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Pitchess Motion = Two-Step Process: 1. Hearing on the Pitchess Motion For Court to Determine If the Threshold is Met IF the Threshold is Met... 2. The In Camera Review Session For Court to Identify Records that are Specified in the Successful Pitchess Motion and Discoverable Under the Pitchess Statutes
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Practice Tip: Some Courts Expect to Hold the In Camera Review on the Same Date as the Motion Hearing, But This is Not Required. The Agency Custodian of Records Should Not Attend the Motion Hearing Unless the Court Orders It, BUT... The Agency Custodian MUST Attend the In Camera Review Session
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Agency s Custodian of Records Should Bring All Records Potentially Within the Scope of the Pitchess Motion to the Court for Review.
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Practice Tips: Bring Hardcopies, NOT Digital Records Put the Apparent Target Records in a Binder for the Court to Peruse... BUT Have the Entire Personnel File Available in Case the Court Demands It
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Make Sure the Court Conducts the Record Review In Chambers, NOT in Open Court
Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip: Some Courts Resist Doing the Review In Camera... BUT, It is Required by Law.
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Make Sure that Only Authorized Personnel are Present In Camera During the Record Review: Judge Court Reporter (Court Staff Also Permitted) Agency s Custodian of Records Officer(s) Whose Records Are Being Reviewed Persons Whom the Privilege Holder(s) Want to Have Present
Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip: The Privilege Holder Should Specifically State (Not Request) That He/She/It Wants to Have Its Attorney Present for the In Camera Review: The Attorney Should be Able to Protect the Privileges During the In Camera Review Better than the Custodian Alone.
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review People Who Are NOT Permitted to be Present or Within Earshot During the In Camera Review: Moving Party Moving Party s Attorney/Representative Others Who Are Not on the Authorized List
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review On the Record Court Reporter Custodian of Records Must Be Under Oath Court Must Verbally Identify Documents Conducted Outside Hearing of Movant etc. Transcript Must Be Sealed
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Mandatory Exclusions The Court Must Exclude from a Pitchess Discovery-Disclosure Order: Info re Complaints re Conduct 5+ Years Before Incident at Issue in the Action Conclusions, Thought Processes, Analyses, and Factual Inferences of any Investigator of a Complaint of Officer Misconduct Facts So Remote as to be Virtually Useless (of No Practical Benefit)
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Pitchess Order Production Component: Make Sure the Order is Specific About Which Records or Information Must be Discovered to (or May be Disclosed by) the Moving Party, IF Any Are Identified During the In Camera Review
Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip: Some Courts Will Order the Custodian to Produce the Specified Records; Other Courts Will Copy the Identified Records and Produce them After the In Camera Review is Completed.
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Pitchess Order the Protective Order Component: Mandatory Pitchess Order Should Include the Mandatory Requirement that records disclosed or discovered may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law. Recommended A Privilege Holder Should Also Make a Good Cause Showing that the Records: May Only Be Used by the Movant in the Action at Issue; and Must Be Returned or Verifiably Destroyed at the Action s End
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Pitchess Order Disclosure v. Discovery: The Pitchess statutes, and some of the related case law, suggest that discovery and disclosure are two different things in the Pitchess procedure: Discovery may mean pre-trial productiondisclosure to movant Disclosure may mean publication to the jury at trial
Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip Make Sure the Pitchess Order Clarifies Whether the Records at Issue Must Only Be Produced to the Moving Party, or Whether the Moving Party is Permitted to Publish Them at Trial Without Further Order (Or Both)
3. What Are the Normal Exemptions from the Pitchess Procedure? (Bypasses)
3. Pitchess Procedure: Normal Exemptions 1. The Criminal Prosecutor s Investigation 2. Release of Complaint to Complainant 3. Discretionary Release of Anonymous Data 4. Rebuttal Facts After False Statement to Media
3. Criminal Prosecutor s Investigation Exception Pitchess statutory procedure does not apply to investigations or proceedings conducted by: Grand Jury District Attorney s Office Attorney General s Office
3. Release of Complaint to Complainant Government Agency is Required to Release a Complaint to the Person Who Made the Complaint No Pitchess Motion/Order Required
3. Anonymous Data Exception A Government Agency is Permitted, but Not Required to Disclose Data Regarding: Number, Type, or Disposition of Complaints Made Against Its Officers IF the Data Does Not Identify the Individuals- Officers No Pitchess Motion/Order Required
3. False Facts About Discipline Made by an Officer to the Media Where an Officer (or His Representative) Publicly Makes a False Statement About an Investigation or the Imposition of Discipline Against that Officer A Government Agency is Permitted, but Not Required to Disclose Facts in the Officer s Personnel File to Specifically Refute the False Statement(s) Made
4. What Happens Under Pitchess When the Officer is Adverse to the Police Dept.?
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. The Officer May Be in an Adversarial Position to the Custodial Police Agency When: The Officer Seeks to Review Internal Affairs File Records Not Stored in His/Her Personnel File The Officer is a Party to a Lawsuit Against the Custodial Police Agency (& Public Entity) The Officer Seeks to Testify as an Adverse Witness Against the Custodial Police Agency
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Officer Review of Internal Affairs File Records NOT Stored in His/Her Personnel File: While the Officer is Employed by the Custodial Government Agency, the Officer Is Entitled to Reasonable Inspection of His/Her Own Personnel File Without a Pitchess Motion/Order Officer Only Entitled to Inspect His/Her Personnel File Records Containing or Constituting Adverse Comments But NOT the Underlying Investigative Records (Particularly Where Such Records Are Stored Separately from the Officer s Personnel File) Where the Officer is Not Entitled to His/Her Own Personnel File Records, the Officer May Need to File/Serve a Pitchess Motion
4. Officer v. Police Dept.: The Emerging Exception frompitchess for the Custodial Government Agency
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. The Custodial Agency Discovery Exception: Question: What Happens When the Agency With Custody of the Officer s Personnel File Wants to Review or Use that Information Against the Officer in Litigation? Example: When the Custodial Public Entity is Up Against the Officer as an Adverse Party or Adverse Witness.
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. The Custodial Agency Discovery Exception: Michael v. Gates (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 737
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Facts Former/retired LAPD captain testified as an Expert for Plaintiffs in a Civil Suit No Deposition of Expert No Pitchess Motion Filed/Heard City Reviewed Personnel File Prior to Trial City Tried to Use Pers. Info at Trial, But Could Not Michael then Sued City for Pitchess Violation The Trial Court Decided for the City: No Violation Michael Appealed The City Prevailed on Appeal
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Issues Presented: Must a Custodial Government Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure Before It (or Its Attorneys) Can Review Officer Personnel Files In Its Possession? Must a Custodial Government Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure Before It (or Its Attorneys) Can Use Officer Personnel File Information Against the Officer in Litigation?
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Issues Presented (Reformed by Court): Must the Custodial Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure to Conduct Discovery Regarding Officer Personnel File Information In Its Possession? Must the Custodial Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure Before Making Otherwise Un- Excepted Disclosure of Officer Personnel File Information In Its Possession?
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Rationale: Under Pitchess, Discovery = Inspection of Records and Other Materials in the Possession of an Adverse Party in Litigation Purpose of the Pitchess Statutes Is to Regulate Use of Peace Officer Personnel Records in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Rationale: Where the Custodial Agency Already Possesses the Information at Issue, It Is NOT Conducting Discovery Under Pitchess Where the Custodial Agency is Not Conducting Discovery of Pitchess-Privileged Matter, the Custodial Agency Is NOT Required to Go Through the Pitchess Procedure
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications: Where a Custodial Agency Deposes an Officer About Information Already In the Agency s Possession, the Agency Is NOT Conducting Discovery Under the Meaning of the Pitchess Statutes
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications (cont d): The Rationale Behind Barring Deposition on Pitchess-Privileged Information Thus Operates In Reverse On Matters That Are Not Protected by the Pitchess Privilege Just as the Officer Should Not Be Forced to Reveal Information Protected by the Pitchess Privilege Just Because the Quest for Such Information Comes Via a Deposition...
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications (cont d): Because the Pitchess Statutes Are Not to be Construed to Require Absurd Results, the Custodial Agency Should Not Be Forced to Get a Pitchess Order to Depose an Officer About Information It Already Possesses As Long As the Deposition Does Not Seek Information the Agency Does Not Possess, the Deposition Would Not Be Discovery Under the Pitchess Statutes
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications Open Question: Whether or not a Pitchess Order is Required Where the Custodial Agency Seeks to Depose the Officer About Personnel File Facts- Information the Agency Does Not Possess, but Which Are Related to or Underlying the Facts-Information the Agency Already Possesses
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications: The Michael Court Also Implied That Its Decision Might be Different If the Trial Court Had Allowed the Pitchess-Privileged Matter to Be Used at Trial The Michael Court Thus Implied That a Pitchess Order Might Have Been Necessary If the Custodial Agency Sought to Disclose the Pitchess-Privileged Matter to the Jury at Trial
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Aftermath: Other Courts Evaluating the Issue or Applying the Michael Holding Have Noted that Although the Pitchess Statutes Permit the Custodial Agency to Waive the Need for a Hearing on a Pitchess Motion and to Review Personnel File Information In Its Possession Without a Pitchess Order...
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Aftermath: Because the Pitchess Statutes Do Not Permit the Agency to Waive the Requirement for a Motion or In Camera Review Altogether... Govt. Alone May Waive Right to Hearing on Pitchess Motion A Pitchess Order is Likely Required Before Disclosure of Personnel File to the Jury (or Entities Other Than the Custodial Agency and Its Attorneys)
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Aftermath Key Cases to Review: Zanone v. City of Whittier (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 174, 187 Gonzalez v. Spencer (9th Cir. 2003) 336 F.3d 832, 837-838 People v. Gwillim (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1254, 1269-1270 People v. Superior Ct. (Gremminger) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 397, 404-407 Attorney General Opinion, 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 185, 193-195 (1996)
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Take-Away #1: Custodial Public Entities (and/or their Attorneys) Do Not Need a Pitchess Order to Review an Officer s Personnel File Information In Its Possession Even If the Purpose of the Review is Adverse to Officer s Interests (i.e., to Impeach the Officer at Trial)
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Take-Away #2: Custodial Public Entities (and/or their Attorneys) Should Not Need a Pitchess Order to Question (or Depose) an Officer About the Officer s Personnel File Information IF that Information is Already In Its Possession It s Not Discovery Privileged by Pitchess If the Entity Already Possesses the Information at Issue The Pitchess Statutes Do Not Bar Officer Questioning Where the Pitchess Privilege Does Not Apply
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Take-Away #3: Custodial Public Entities (and/or their Attorneys) Probably Do Need a Pitchess Order to Examine an Officer/Witness at Trial About the Officer s Personnel File Information In Its Possession If an Officer s Personnel File Information is to be Disclosed to the Jury at Trial (or to other unauthorized persons), Through Testimony or Exhibits, the Public Entity Likely Must Go Through the Pitchess Process Before Such Disclosure Even for Personnel File Information Already In Its Possession
Liability for Custodial Agency Breach of the Pitchess Procedure: FAQ If the Public Entity Violates the Pitchess Statutes, Does the Affected Officer Have a Right to Sue on That Basis? If the Custodial Agency Discloses or Conducts Discovery of Pitchess-Privileged Information Without a Pitchess Order, Can the Officer Bring a Potentially Valid Claim?
Liability for Custodial Agency Breach of the Pitchess Procedure: If the Public Entity Violates the Pitchess Statutes, Does the Affected Officer Have a Right to Sue on That Basis? No. There is no private right of action (no cause of action) for violation of the Pitchess privileges by the custodial government agency. Other Available Relief? Yes. A cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy could be based on a disclosure of Pitchess-privileged matter, in violation of the Pitchess statutes, where the officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter at issue. Writ of Mandate to Prevent the Agency from Releasing Information in Violation of the Pitchess Statutes in the First Place.
Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept. Custodial Government Agencies Should: Consider Formatting any Motion to Compel as a Pitchess Motion If an Adverse Officer Refuses to Answer Questions Related to Custodial Personnel File Information at a Deposition Or Consider Making a Pitchess Motion Before Deposing the Adverse Officer
Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept. Custodial Government Agencies Should: Plan on Bringing a Pitchess Motion Before Examining an Adverse Officer- Witness At Trial About Personnel File Information in the Agency s Possession
Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept. Custodial Government Agencies Should: Provide Training to Records Custodians, Police Supervisors, and Attorneys Representing the Custodial Public Agency About the Requirements of the Pitchess Procedure To Reduce the Risk of Successful Invasion of Privacy Claims
5. What Protections Do the Officer or Agency Have in Federal Court?
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Question #1: My Case is in Federal Court, Do I Need to Follow the Pitchess Procedure? Short Answer = NO No Pitchess Motion or Order Required for Discovery of Peace Officer Records By Any Party in a Federal Case No Pitchess Motion or Order Required for Disclosure of Peace Officer Records by Any Party in a Federal Case Why Not? Because Federal Privileges, NOT State-Law Privileges, Control in Federal Cases. See Fed. R. Evid. 501.
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Question #2: Does That Mean the Officer or the Custodial Government Agency Has NO Protection for its Officer s Personnel File Records? Short Answer = NO Why? Because There Are Analogs of the Pitchess Privileges in Federal Privilege Law.
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs in Federal Court: Right to Privacy Official Information Privilege Executive- Deliberative Process Privilege Law Enforcement Investigation Privilege
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Right to Privacy: Where a Party has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Information... And Party Objects to Disclosure... Federal Court will Balance Need for Disclosure v. Constitutional Interest in Privacy Officer s Pitchess Privileges MAY be Considered in the Balancing
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official Information: Protects an Agency s Official But Confidential Records Examples: Personnel File Records Internal Affairs Records
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Deliberative- Executive Process: Protects an Agency s Decision-Making Processes: Analyses & Opinions Evaluations Drafts Recommendations Proposals
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official Information and Deliberative-Executive Process: Rationale of Both Privileges: To Avoid Discouraging Citizens from Providing Confidential Information to the Govt./P.D. To Avoid Discouraging Agencies from Honest and Candid Self-Evaluation, To Improve Services
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official Information and Deliberative- Executive Process Both: Involve Balancing Do Not Protect Purely Factual Information (Where Severable From Analyses) Require Showing of Specific Need for the Protected Information Should Cause Court to Do In Camera Review, But... Federal Courts Often Skip the In Camera Review re such privileges
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Law Enforcement Investigation: Usually Bars Disclosure of Facts and Investigatory Files While the Investigation is Still Ongoing-Incomplete Rationale = To Protect Ability of Law Enforcement to Investigate Potential Crimes Court Balances: Need for Disclosure v. Potential Harm to the Investigation
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Take-Aways re Federal Officer & Agency Record Privileges: Generally Weaker Than the Pitchess Privileges The Federal Privileges Favor Discovery-Disclosure Whereas, the Pitchess Privileges Presume Confidentiality The Federal Pitchess Analogs Rely Upon Balancing the Litigant s Interests Against the Privilege-Holder s Interests In Camera Review is Usually Optional Once Privileged Matter is Produced, There is No Automatic Procedural Obstacle to Use at Trial by the Recipient
Five Questions We ve Answered: 1. What is a peace officer personnel file record? 2. What is my Police Department supposed to do when someone seeks peace officer personnel file records in a California state court civil (or criminal) case? 3. What are the normal exemptions from the Pitchess procedure (bypasses)? 4. What happens when the officer is up against (adverse to) the Police Department in a civil lawsuit? (Emerging Trends) 5. What protection does the officer or agency have in a federal court lawsuit? With These Answers, You Should Be Able to Manage the Process of Pitchess Discovery With More Confidence, Less Risk, and More Effective Results.
Unanswered Questions? Q & A Time... Please also see our handout: Includes Extensive Analysis and Case Law Authority
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP