22 Cal. App. 5th 1122
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- James Davis, a supervising juvenile correctional officer, was terminated after an internal affairs investigation alleging insubordination, discourteous treatment of a subordinate (Officer Blue), improper supervision of his wife, and falsified timecards.
- County provided Davis an Internal Affairs (IA) Report and a September 2012 memorandum by investigator Glenn Johnson (the Memo) but withheld the Memo’s tabbed attachments (incident reports and interview transcripts).
- Davis requested the withheld attachments before his Skelly predisciplinary hearing and during administrative appeal; County refused.
- The Civil Service Commission denied Davis’s appeal; the superior court denied his writ petition, ruling POBRA did not require disclosure of the attachments.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the attachments were part of a “report” under POBRA (Gov. Code § 3303(g)) and remanded for the trial court to order production and to decide the appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County’s pre-Skelly disclosure satisfied constitutional due process | Davis: withholding attachments deprived him of required prediscipline materials and violated due process | County: Skelly does not require full prediscipline disclosure of investigative attachments | Court: Skelly-level due process satisfied by materials provided; court did not reach broader constitutional question because POBRA remedy suffices |
| Whether POBRA (§ 3303(g)) entitles Davis to investigator reports and complaints, including attachments to the September 2012 Memo | Davis: “any reports or complaints” includes the Memo’s attachments (incident reports, interview transcripts) | County: “reports” means final/formal reports only; raw notes/attachments need not be disclosed; some materials confidential | Court: “Report” includes the Memo and its tabbed attachments under the circumstances; County violated § 3303(g) by withholding them |
| Scope of required disclosure under § 3303(g) — are interview transcripts and incident reports covered? | Davis: attachments used by investigator are part of the report and must be produced | County: attachments are raw source materials not encompassed by the term “reports” and may be confidential | Court: attachments were part of the investigative report and must be disclosed (confidentiality not established) |
| Appropriate remedy for POBRA violation | Davis: reinstatement with backpay (or other significant relief) | County: lesser remedies (e.g., exclusion of the attachments or no relief if outcome unaffected) | Court: remedy is within the trial court’s broad discretion under § 3309.5; remanded for the superior court to order production and determine appropriate relief after review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564 (discusses timing and scope of disclosures under POBRA)
- San Diego Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Diego, 98 Cal.App.4th 779 (construed § 3303(g) to include raw notes and tape recordings as producible)
- Gilbert v. City of Santa Cruz, 130 Cal.App.4th 1264 (interpreted “reports” as more formal and limited than raw investigative materials)
- Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194 (establishes predisciplinary Skelly hearing rights)
- Williams v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.3d 195 (trial courts have broad discretion to fashion remedies for POBRA violations)