California Supreme Court Holds Administrative Hearing Officers Have Authority to Grant Pitchess Motions for Discovery of Personnel Disciplinary Records
Overview: The California Supreme Court has ruled that administrative hearing officers have the authority to grant a Pitchess motion for discovery of personnel records in an appeal following termination of a corrections officer. After being terminated for falsifying time records, a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department employee filed a motion during the administrative hearing seeking discovery of personnel records to support her claim of disparate treatment. Specifically, the employee claimed other Department employees who also falsified time records were not disciplined as harshly. The Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that hearing officers have the authority to rule on, and, when necessary, grant Pitchess motions for discovery of personnel records.
Training Points: This decision confirms that Pitchess motions may be filed, considered and granted in various legal forums, including administrative hearings. This ruling will effect public agencies who conduct disciplinary administrative hearings. Importantly, the Court declined to limit the authority of persons hearing and ruling on Pitchess motions to “sworn judicial officers” only, but rather extended this authority to hearing officers who conduct administrative hearings. Agencies are encouraged to consult their counsel when a Pitchess motion is filed in the administrative hearing context to determine whether any Pitchess protections apply and, if so, how best to address them in any opposition to the motion and at the administrative hearing.
Summary Analysis: In Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz, a correctional officer claimed her termination was excessive compared to the discipline imposed on other personnel. To prove this, she requested the disciplinary records of other Department officers who had been investigated for similar misconduct. The hearing officer ordered the Department to produce the requested records for “in camera” (private) review. The trial court found that only judicial officers had the authority to rule on Pitchess motions. The appellate court disagreed, extending this authority to disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, and found that Evidence Code section 1043 allows parties to file Pitchess motions in civil and criminal cases. The Court relied on Evidence Code section 1043’s reference to Pitchess motions being filed in “the appropriate court or administrative body,” which necessarily includes the administrative hearing in this case. The Court further held that, while Pitchess motions filed in Department of Motor Vehicle hearings cannot further the goals of the Legislature, permitting parties to file Pitchess motions in disciplinary proceedings is appropriate, warranted and fulfills the contemplated purpose of Pitchess motions.