Tentative Ruling: Robert Kirsch, et al. v. County of Santa Barbara, et al.
Case Number
20CV02214
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 10/02/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
1) Motion to Lodge Personnel Files Under Seal
Tentative Ruling
For all reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants to lodge peace officer personnel files under seal is granted in part. Exhibits A (in part, beginning on attachments at bates number COSB001659 through the end of exhibit A), D through Z, and AA through GG of defendant County of Santa Barbara’s compendium of evidence lodged on May 18, 2026, shall remain under seal. These documents are deemed filed in support of the County’s motion for summary judgment set for hearing on November 6, 2026. As to the remaining exhibits in the compendium, these documents are not properly lodged or filed under seal. On or before October 9, 2026, the County shall file a public version of its compendium wherein Exhibits A (in part, other than bates number COSB001659 through the end of exhibit A), Exhibits B, C, HH, II, OO, PP, and QQ are filed openly and the remaining exhibits are redacted. The court will only consider documents in support of the County’s motion for summary judgment that are expressly permitted by court order as filed under seal or that are filed openly pursuant to California law. The clerk of the court shall provide notice of this order.
Background:
The original complaint in this action was filed on July 6, 2020. This case is related to Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 22CV00655 entitled, Robert Kirsch vs. Santa Barbara County Civil Service Commission. (See Sept. 29, 2022, Order On Related Cases.)
On February 6, 2023, the operative second amended complaint (SAC) was filed by plaintiffs Robert Kirsch (Kirsch), Joshua Lake (Lake), and Robert Garnica (Garnica) against defendants County of Santa Barbara (the County) and Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department (SBSD).
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.)
As alleged in the SAC:
At all relevant times, Kirsh was a custody deputy employed by SBSD, Lake was a senior custody deputy employed by SBSD, and Garnica was a custody sergeant employed by SBSD. (SAC, ¶¶ 15-17.)
On August 9, 2019, plaintiffs reported to their commander that a custody deputy had engaged in illegal activities pertaining to inappropriate handling of drug evidence. (SAC, ¶ 23.)
Plaintiffs suffered retaliation. (SAC, ¶¶ 20-52.) Plaintiffs were subjected to unique scrutiny over timecard activity. (SAC, ¶¶ 24, 26, 27, 44.) Kirsch was demoted. (SAC, ¶ 26.) Garnica was told to change Kirsch’s employee performance report. (SAC, ¶ 27.) Plaintiffs were subjected to internal affairs investigations. (SAC, ¶¶ 27, 29, 32-34.) Kirsch was placed on administrative leave. (SAC, ¶ 31.) Garnica was transferred. (SAC, ¶ 31.) Lake was stripped of certain senior deputy duties. (SAC, ¶ 36.) Lake was blocked from applying for special operations. (SAC, ¶ 38.) Kirsch was given a notice of proposed discipline of termination. (SAC, ¶ 44.) Kirsch was also subjected to retaliation for reporting and opposing gender or sex discrimination pertaining to an alleged improper work reassignment of a female deputy. (SAC, ¶¶ 20-21.)
On March 8, 2023, the County filed an answer to the SAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting ten affirmative defenses.
On May 18, 2026, the County filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) which is currently set for hearing on November 6, 2026. The County’s MSJ is supported by a compendium of evidence (Compendium) lodged under seal on May 18. The Compendium consists of exhibits A through Z, AA through II, OO, PP, and QQ.
Also on May 18, defendants filed this motion to lodge under seal certain peace officer personnel files. The motion requests that the court enter an order permitting the lodging under seal of exhibits D through Z and AA through GG of the County’s Compendium. (Motion, p. 6, ll. 4-7.) Defendants argue these exhibits are confidential peace officer personnel records that were exchanged pursuant to the court’s May 2, 2025, minute order for Pitchess discovery. (Motion, p. 3, ll. 10-13.) There is no opposition or response to this motion from any party. [Note: The County takes the position in this litigation that SBSD was erroneously sued as a separate governmental entity independent of the County, this motion to seal is brought by both the County and SBSD, and the MSJ is brought by the County only.]
The County’s MSJ was continued to November 6, 2026, when the court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed ex parte application. (See Order, Sept. 28, 2026; Minute Order, Sept. 14, 2026.) However, defendants’ motion regarding sealing of peace officer personnel documents remains on calendar for this hearing.
Analysis:
Subject to certain exceptions, “personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers … maintained by a state or local agency … 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).) “ ‘Personnel records’ means any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following: [¶] (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information. [¶] (2) Medical history. [¶] (3) Election of employee benefits. [¶] (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline. [¶] (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties. [¶] (6) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (Pen. Code, § 832.8, subd. (a).)
Exceptions from personnel records include records where there was a “sustained finding” by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency “involving dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence, or perjury.” (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b).) “ ‘Sustained’ means a final determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing officer, or arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Sections 3304 and 3304.5 of the Government Code, that the actions of the peace officer or custodial officer were found to violate law or department policy.” (Pen. Code, § 832.8, subd. (b).)
The court has reviewed exhibits D through Z and AA through GG of the Compendium, the declaration of April Navaro, and the court’s records pertaining to the Pitchess process in May and June 2025. (See Motion, p. 4, ll. 10-16; Minute Orders dated May 2, 2025, and June 26, 2025.) A portion of exhibit A contains duplicates of these records, beginning on the attachments at bates number COSB001659 through the end of exhibit A. The evidence indicates these exhibits are investigation personnel records under Penal Code section 832.8, subdivisions (a)(4) and (a)(5), and potentially subdivision (a)(6). These documents are subject to a protective order entered in this action. (Protective Order, April 26, 2022.) The parties do not appear to dispute that these materials constitute personnel records of peace or custodial officers maintained by SBSD 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”].)
Because these records are confidential as a matter of law, they are exempted from the procedures under rules 2.550 and 2.551 of the Rules of Court. (See Pen. Code, § 832.7. subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(2).) “These rules do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(2).) Under the applicable common law, “documents subject to a protective order often remain outside public purview on a ‘good cause’ showing akin to that which supported issuance of the protective order in the first place.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 484.) The documents at issue constitute peace officer investigation materials that are confidential as a matter of law outside of certain exceptions that have not been shown to apply. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subds. (a), (b).) At this pretrial stage of this proceeding, the court finds there is good cause to override the presumption of public access. The court will grant the motion in part and permit these documents to be filed under seal.
As to the remaining exhibits in the Compendium, including exhibits A (in part), B, C, HH, II, OO, PP, and QQ, there is no motion or application to seal these exhibits. They do not appear to constitute peace or custodial officer personnel records. “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).) The protective order in place does not require or permit the sealing of these records under these circumstances. (Protective Order, April 26, 2022.) These documents are not properly lodged or filed under seal.
The court will not consider exhibits A (in part), B, C, HH, II, OO, PP, and QQ in support of the MSJ unless they are filed openly. “The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 596.) “Substantive courtroom proceedings in ordinary civil cases, and the transcripts and records pertaining to these proceedings, are ‘presumptively open.’ ” (Id., p. 597.)