Robert Kirsch et al vs County of Santa Barbara et al

Case Number

20CV02214

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/02/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Production of Pitchess Documents

Tentative Ruling

(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of defendant County of Santa Barbara for production of “Pitchess” documents is granted as to defendant’s request for an in camera inspection of the records identified in the motion, only.

(2) On or before June 2, 2025, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office shall, in accordance with this ruling, index, label, and lodge under seal the following records which are described in Request Nos. 1 through 10 of the notice of the present motion: the personnel files and records of plaintiff Robert Kirsch, plaintiff Joshua Lake, and plaintiff Robert Garnica; all materials maintained under the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office “Work Evaluation and Review” program as to plaintiff Robert Kirsch, plaintiff Joshua Lake, and plaintiff Robert Garnica; all materials relating to any “Professional Standards Unit” of plaintiff Robert Kirsch, plaintiff Joshua Lake, and plaintiff Robert Garnica; all documents lodged under seal in this action by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on November 4, 2021.

(3) The parties shall appear at the hearing and be prepared to discuss a date for an in camera review of the records to be lodged under seal pursuant to this ruling, and to identify any persons who may claim a privilege and who plaintiffs are willing to have present at the in camera review.

(4) Defendant shall, on or before May 9, 2025, give, and file proof of service of, notice of the court’s ruling herein to all persons who may claim a privilege in the records to be lodged under seal pursuant to this ruling. Defendant shall also give to these persons notice of the date of the in camera review ordered herein.

Background:

This case is related to case no. 22CV00655 entitled Robert Kirsch vs. Santa Barbara County Civil Service Commission. (See Sept. 29, 2022, Order On Related Cases.)

The second amended complaint (SAC) filed in this action on February 6, 2023, by plaintiffs Robert Kirsch (Kirsch), Joshua Lake (Lake), and Robert Garnica (Garnica) (collectively, plaintiffs) against defendants County of Santa Barbara (the County) and Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department (the SBSD) (collectively, defendants) is the operative pleading. The SAC includes three causes of action: (1) retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12900 et seq. (the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or FEHA) (by Kirsch against all defendants); (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (by plaintiffs against all defendants); and (3) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on gender in violation of FEHA (by Kirsch against all defendants.)

Briefly, in the SAC, plaintiffs allege that, while employed with the SBSD, they were each subjected to adverse employment actions in retaliation for plaintiffs reporting gender discrimination, illegal activity, and violations of state and federal statutes, rules, and regulations.

On March 8, 2023, the County filed an answer to the SAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting ten affirmative defenses.

On August 14, 2024, the court entered an order approving the terms of a joint stipulation by the parties to extend the time within which this action must be brought to trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330.

Relevant to the present proceeding, court records reflect that on July 28, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order (the 2021 Motion) directing the County to make available certain records maintained pursuant to Penal Code section 832.5, including documents relating to investigations of plaintiffs’ allegations, personnel complaint investigations initiated against plaintiffs, investigations of and resulting discipline taken in connection with an alleged mishandling of evidence by a non-party custody deputy, investigations of and resulting discipline regarding the alleged public intoxication of a non-party lieutenant, investigations of and proposed discipline regarding purported time-card fraud by another non-party lieutenant, and recordings of any interviews described above.

The SBSD, and other non-party respondents, opposed the 2021 Motion.

On September 20, 2021, the court entered a minute order (the September 2021 Order) affirming its tentative ruling on the 2021 Motion, in which the court determined that plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient good cause to justify an in camera review of some of the records at issue in the 2021 Motion. Pursuant to the 2021 Order, the court directed the County to lodge for in camera review the documents specified in that order, and to submit a proposed stipulated protective order. (See also Oct. 6, 2021, Order.)

Court records reflect that on November 4, 2021, the SBSD lodged under seal the records described in the September 2021 Order, which were reviewed by the court in camera on April 7, 2022.

On April 26, 2022, the court entered an order directing that the records reviewed by the court on April 7, 2022, be produced to plaintiffs, among other things, and separately entered an order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation directing that all records furnished to plaintiff be kept confidential and used only in connection with the preparation and trial of this action.

On February 18, 2025, defendants filed a motion requesting that the court enter an order pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043 et seq., directing the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office (the SBSO) to make available certain personnel records of plaintiffs maintained by the SBSO pursuant to Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7, and more particularly described in the notice of the motion. (Notice at p. 1, ll. 4-8.)

Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Analysis:

In support of the present motion, the County submits a declaration of its counsel Teresa M. Martinez (Martinez), who asserts that the SBSD was erroneously sued in this action as a separate entity. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 1.) Martinez also declares that the SBSO, who is not named as a defendant in this matter, was “erroneously sued as a separate entity.” (Ibid.) For purposes of this proceeding, the court accepts the truth of the representations made by Martinez, without consideration as to what, if any, implications may arise from any inaccuracies in these representations.

In addition, the court infers from the representations above, notwithstanding that these representations suggest that the County, the SBSD, and the SBSO are one entity or governmental agency, that the SBSO is the agency with custody and control of the records at issue in the motion. Further, the court will, for ease of reference and to avoid confusion, refer below to the County and the SBSD collectively as the County, and to the SBSO separately.

Subject to exceptions, “the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code.” (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).) The parties do not appear to dispute that the materials which are the subject of the present motion constitute the personnel records of peace or custodial officers (here, plaintiffs) and records maintained by the SBSO pursuant to Penal Code section 832.5 which are, together with information obtained from those records, confidential. (See, e.g., Essick v. County of Sonoma (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 941, 950-951 [general discussion re “personnel records”].)

Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8, together with Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1047 “create a statutory scheme making [law enforcement personnel records] confidential and subject to discovery only through the procedure set out in the Evidence Code.” (Riverside County Sheriff’s Dept. v. Stiglitz (2014) 60 Cal.4th 624, 630.) Further, “Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq. constitute the exclusive means by which a litigant in a civil action may obtain discovery of records governed by those statutes.” (City of Hemet v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1423, original italics.)

A party seeking the discovery or disclosure of records described under Penal Code sections 832.5 or 832.7, or information obtained from those records, must “file a written motion … upon written notice to the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records….” (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a).) Relevant here, the motion must, among other things, identify “the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought [and] the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records,” and must describe “the type of records or information sought.” (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(1)-(2).)

Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute that, as to plaintiffs, the motion complies with the provisions of subdivision (b)(1) and (2) of Evidence Code section 1043, or that the County has given sufficient written notice as required under subdivision (a)(1) of Evidence Code section 1043. Plaintiffs also do not appear to dispute that the County has identified the SBSO as the government agency that has custody and control of the records. Moreover, the court finds that the County has included with the motion the items described subdivision (b)(1) and (2) of Evidence Code section 1043, and that the County has provided sufficient written notice of the motion to plaintiffs.

The motion must also be supported by a declaration “showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records.” (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) “To show good cause for discovery of confidential officer information, [the] motion must (among other things) explain the proposed defense and articulate how the requested discovery may be admissible as direct or impeachment evidence in support of the proposed defense.” (Giovanni B. v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 312, 320.)

“The threshold for establishing good cause is ‘relatively low.’ [Citations.] The proposed defense must have a ‘plausible factual foundation’ supported by the defendant’s counsel’s declaration and other documents supporting the motion. [Citation.] A plausible scenario ‘is one that might or could have occurred.’ [Citation.] The ‘defendant must also show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial.... Once that burden is met, the defendant has shown materiality under [Evidence Code] section 1043.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Moreno (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 692, 701; see also Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 28, 41, fn. 2 (Association) [the supporting declaration “may be executed by an attorney based on information and belief”].)

In addition, though the burden of showing “good cause” is not high, the declaration must include “sufficient specificity to preclude the possibility of a defendant’s simply casting about for any helpful information….” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.) The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the finding of good cause. (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1086.)

“If the threshold showing of good cause is met, the trial court reviews the pertinent documents in chambers in conformity with section 915 and discloses only that information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.” (Riske v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 295, 304 (Riske II).) “This two-step process for discovery of peace officer personnel records balances the officer’s strong privacy interests in his or her own personnel records with the needs of civil litigants … to obtain information material to their claim or defense.” (Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 656.)

In the declaration described above, Martinez declares that Garnica was employed by the SBSO from 1989 until he retired in March 2020, that Kirsch was employed by the SBSO from 2004 until he was terminated in December 2020, and that Lake was employed by the SBSO from 2009 until he separated from the SBSO in July 2023. (Martinez Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) At the time of separation from the SBSO whether by retirement, termination, or otherwise, Garnica was a Custody Sergeant, Kirsch was a Custody Deputy, and Lake was a Senior Custody Deputy. (Ibid.)

Martinez asserts that, in response to the claims alleged by plaintiffs in this action, the County will show that it had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons to take the actions at issue in this litigation without respect to whether plaintiffs engaged in allegedly protected activity, that the “same decision” defense is applicable to defeat plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 and to limit remedies available under FEHA, and that the information requested in the motion is admissible at trial under this theory. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 7.) Martinez further asserts that plaintiffs’ claim for failure to prevent retaliation will fail if the FEHA retaliation cause of action fails. (Ibid.) For these reasons, Martinez contends, there exists a logical connection between the liability alleged against the County and its proposed defenses that warrants disclosure of the records requested in the motion. (Ibid.)

In addition, Martinez asserts that the records requested in the motion, which include plaintiffs’ personnel files, all files maintained under the SBSO’s Work Evaluation and Review or “WEAR” program, and files related to internal affairs investigations by the SBSO’s Professional Standard Unit, will provide evidence showing that plaintiffs have engaged in misconduct, which Martinez contends is directly relevant to the County’s defenses and will lead to the discovery of other relevant evidence, such as the identification of witnesses. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 9.)

As to plaintiffs’ personnel files, Martinez contends that the County must have access to these records because plaintiffs each put their employment performance at issue, and because documents contained in plaintiffs’ personnel files will include: plaintiffs’ performance reviews; any employee advancements, appraisals or discipline imposed against plaintiffs; citizen complaints made against plaintiffs; and complaints or investigations concerning events in which the plaintiffs participated and which pertain to the performance of plaintiffs’ duties. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 10.) Martinez further contends that plaintiffs’ personnel files will include information about employee benefits which will impact the calculation of damages. (Ibid.)

As to the request for plaintiffs’ WEAR program files and records relating to internal affairs investigations of plaintiffs, Martinez contends that these records will also contain information regarding plaintiffs’ performance, and will allow the County to establish the thoroughness of any investigations of plaintiffs and to identify witness interviews and other evidence considered as a part of these investigations. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 10.)

Martinez further states that plaintiffs intend to present evidence to show that they were allegedly singled-out by the SBSO as a result of SBSO’s differential treatment of plaintiffs and other custody deputies who engaged in similar misconduct. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 12.) Martinez contends that, to refute these claims, the County also requires access to all of the materials produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the October 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order further described above. (Ibid.)

Martinez asserts that the SBSO has the records at issue in the present motion and that, absent a court order granting access to these records, the County will be precluded from presenting evidence whether at trial or in support of a motion for summary judgment. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 11.)

Noted above, the SAC alleges a cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA. “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, an employee must show that (1) [the employee] engaged in a “protected activity,” (2) the employer subjected [the employee] to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action.” (Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, 636.)

If the employee establishes a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, the employer is then required, under the three-part burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802–805, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, to produce evidence showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. (Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1, 63; Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 68 (Morgan) [also noting that the employer’s burden is of “going forward with additional evidence”].)

Based on the information appearing in the Martinez declaration, and for all reasons discussed above, the County has sufficiently explained the nature of its proposed defense to plaintiffs’ claim for retaliation under FEHA.

The record further reflects that the conduct which plaintiffs allege constitute unlawful retaliation occurred between March 2019 and December 2020 and includes: a request to Kirsch’s supervisor to “send all of the bad things he can” about Kirsch; denying permission to Kirsch to attend an off-duty class; demoting Kirsch due to alleged timecard fraud; asking Garnica to change Kirsch’s Employee Performance Report; accusing plaintiffs of conducting their own investigation into a drug incident; opening an internal affairs investigation into Lake and Kirsch; changing overtime rules in a manner that made it difficult for Garnica to get overtime; taking Kirsch’s badge and gun while Kirsch was working overtime, and placing Kirsch on administrative leave; naming Garnica as a subject in an investigation involving Lake; proposing a 2 week suspension for Garnica for an incident where Garnica was not present; transferring Garnica and changing his work hours; subjecting Lake to internal affairs investigations; revoking Lake’s responsibilities; delaying Kirsch’s return from administrative leave after receiving completed internal affairs investigations of Kirsch and Lake; blocking Lake for applying for a response team based on a stipulation that no one with an active internal investigations complaint could apply; changing Lake’s rating; serving Kirsch and Lake with notices of proposed discipline based on unsubstantiated claims; serving Lake with a negative WEAR file which would remain in Lake’s personnel file; serving Kirsch with a proposed termination; failing to properly investigate plaintiffs’ reports of illegal activity, serving Lake with a letter of reprimand; unfairly scrutinizing Lake; and upholding Kirsch’s termination without supporting evidence. (SAC, ¶¶ 19, 21-50; see also Martinez Decl., ¶ 8.)

The County also has, for all reasons discussed herein, also sufficiently articulated how the discovery requested in the motion may be admissible as evidence to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment actions alleged in the SAC.

The discovery sought by the County includes: (1) the personnel files and records of Garnica (the Garnica Personnel Records) from the time Garnica was hired to the present; (2) the personnel files and records of Kirsch (the Kirsch Personnel Records); (3) the personnel files and records of Lake (the Lake Personnel Records); (4) all materials related to Garnica and maintained by the SBSO under its WEAR program (the Garnica WEAR files); (5) all materials related to Kirsch and maintained by the SBSO under its WEAR program (the Kirsch WEAR files); (6) all materials related to Lake and maintained by the SBSO under its WEAR program (the Lake WEAR files); (7) all materials relating to any Professional Standards Unit or “PSU” investigations into Garnica (the Garnica PSU Files); (8) all materials relating to any PSU investigations into Kirsch (the Kirsch PSU Files); (9) all materials relating to any PSU investigations into Lake (the Lake PSU Files); and (10) all materials produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the October 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order described above. (Notice at pp. 2-6.)

Available information and evidence shows that the documents described above relate to performance evaluations of plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ disciplinary history, citizen complaints asserted against plaintiffs, and investigations of plaintiffs including with respect to alleged time card fraud and purported tampering with or mishandling drug related evidence by another employee of the SBSO. Based on the description of the records sought by defendants, the nature of the adverse employment actions at issue in this action, and the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs in the SAC and further described above, the court finds that the County has presented a plausible factual foundation showing that the records are potentially relevant to the issue of whether the adverse employment actions at issue were based on any legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons with respect to plaintiffs’ performance and disciplinary history, or any investigations of plaintiffs. (See, e.g., Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 798, 807 [general discussion]; Sisson v. Superior Court (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 24, 33.)  

Further, considering that the County bears the burden “to go forward with additional evidence” of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for any adverse employment actions alleged in the SAC, the County has also shown how the records sought in the motion could lead to evidence which is potentially admissible at trial. (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 68 [noting that defendant “does not take on a burden of persuasion”].) For these and all reasons discussed above, the County has met its burden to show the materiality of the discovery at issue under Evidence Code section 1043.

As to plaintiffs’ second cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, the same or similar reasoning and analysis apply. (Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109 [general discussion].) To the extent plaintiffs successfully establish the elements of a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, the burden will shift to the County to make an evidentiary showing of “a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action.” (Id. at p. 1109.) As the County’s burden as to this issue is evidentiary, and for all reasons further discussed above, the County has shown good cause for the discovery sought in the motion as to the second cause of action alleged in the SAC.

Though plaintiffs assert that any disparate or differential treatment depends on the treatment of others compared to the treatment of plaintiffs, to the extent the County rebuts any presumption of retaliation that may arise upon plaintiffs establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiffs will have an opportunity to show whether the reasons offered by the County is pretextual. (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354-356 [general discussion]; Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1735 [same].)

Plaintiffs also contend that, because the motion seeks documents which cover a period of 30 years or the entirety of plaintiffs’ careers, the requests stated in the motion are over broad and outside the time prescribed in Penal Code section 832.5.

The court understands plaintiffs’ arguments to refer to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Penal Code section 832.5, which requires complaints by members of the public against the personnel of each department or agency in this state that employes peace officers to “be retained for a period of no less than 5 years for records where there was not a sustained finding of misconduct and for not less than 15 years where there was a sustained finding of misconduct.” (Pen. Code, § 832.5, subd. (b).)

During an in camera review of confidential materials relating to a peace officer, the court must exclude from disclosure to the moving party “the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code” and “[f]acts … that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.” (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (b)(1)-(2).) Though a court’s in camera review of peace officer personnel records, or records maintained pursuant to Penal Code section 832.5, may reveal that certain documents, including citizen complaints which are more than five years old, may be excluded from disclosure, plaintiffs fail to explain why the potential inclusion of such documents among the personnel or other records described in the motion demonstrates a lack of good cause for an in camera review of all of the records, or justifies a denial of the motion on this ground. (See Riske II, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 308-309 [general discussion].)

As to plaintiff’s arguments that the motion is “redundant” because it seeks the same documents described in the 2021 Motion or is insufficiently specific as to the factual basis for the request, whether or not there may exist materials which are so remote that their disclosure to the County would not be of practical benefit, “[t]he function of the ‘good cause’ requirement at this stage of the … process … is to determine whether information will be reviewed in camera.” (Association, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 42; see also Riske II, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 304 [discussing parameters of in chambers review].) Further, the County “need not know what information is located in personnel records before [it] obtains the discovery. Such a requirement would be impossible. The required threshold showing does not place a defendant ‘in the Catch–22 position of having to allege with particularity the very information he is seeking.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 721.)

For all reasons discussed above, the County has established good cause for an in camera review of the Garnica Personnel Records, the Kirsch Personnel Records, the Lake Personnel Records, the Garnica WEAR files, the Kirsch WEAR files, the Lake WEAR files, the Garnica PSU Files, the Kirsch PSU Files, the Lake PSU Files, and the records produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the October 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order, as further described above. In addition, absent a dispute by the parties, the County has also made a sufficient showing that the SBSO has the Kirsch Personnel Records, the Lake Personnel Records, the Garnica WEAR files, the Kirsch WEAR files, the Lake WEAR files, the Garnica PSU Files, the Kirsch PSU Files, the Lake PSU Files, and the records produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the October 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order. Therefore, to the extent the County requests an in camera review or investigation of these records, the court will grant the motion.

The court will direct the SBSO to, within 30 days of the court’s order, lodge under seal the Garnica Personnel Records, the Kirsch Personnel Records, the Lake Personnel Records, the Garnica WEAR files, the Kirsch WEAR files, the Lake WEAR files, the Garnica PSU Files, the Kirsch PSU Files, the Lake PSU Files, and the records produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the October 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order, as these documents are described in Request Nos. 1 through 10 of the notice of the present motion.

The records to be lodged under seal by the SBSO, as described in the motion and above, must be sufficiently indexed and labeled in a manner that permits the court to efficiently identify and review these records. In addition, to the extent there exist within the records to be lodged under seal by the SBSO, complaints by a member of the public against Garnica, Kirsch, or Lake as described in Penal Code section 832.5, these complaints shall be separately indexed, labeled, and identified.

Upon the lodging of the records described herein under seal, the court will, among other things, examine the records “in conformity with [Evidence Code] section 915 (i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present)….” (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83; Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (b).)

As plaintiffs are authorized to claim the privilege at issue in this proceeding with respect to records to be lodged under seal by the SBSO, plaintiffs’ counsel shall appear at the hearing on the present motion and be prepared to discuss an appropriate date for an in camera review of the records to be lodged under seal, and to identify any other persons the plaintiffs are willing to have present at the in camera review.

In addition, court records reflect that the materials lodged under seal by the SBSD on November 4, 2021, which were produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the October 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order, include the personnel records of persons other than plaintiffs. As it appears that these persons are authorized to claim the privilege as to some of the records to be lodged under seal and may be present at the in camera review, the court will order the County to give, and file a proof of service of, notice of this ruling to these persons. The County shall also give notice to these persons of the date of the in camera review.

Further, the parties shall be prepared to discuss at the hearing whether any other persons may claim the privilege with respect to the records to be lodged under seal.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice:

In support of the motion, defendants request that the court take judicial notice of the 2021 Order and the April 26, 2022, order. (RJN, ¶¶ 1-2 & Exhs. A-B.) Though not necessary, the court will grant judicial notice of these court records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d)(1).)