ZOlb JAN I fEL~j~O q(213)974-0811

,.'.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESFILED

OFF ICE 0 F THE CO V N T Y CO V N B.E.4JISTRICTCOURT'" KENNETHIIAIINIIALLOFAOMINISTRATlor9ISTRICTOFMARYLAND

500 WEST TEMPLE STREET

LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012-2713

MAR Y C. WICKHAMCounty Counsel January 8, 2016

CLERI;'3'~'1'~1\1:tAT GREtHji~6:I105

BY____ ~TD~CriJi_:T.{(213) 633.090 I

Hon. George J. HazelV.S. District Court, District of MarylandSouthern Division6500 Cherrywood LaneGreenbelt, MD 20770

Re: Kimberlin v. Frey, Case No. CV13-03059-G,JH

Dear Judge Hazel:

I am counsel for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Custodian of Records("DA COR") and am writing in support of Defendant's December 21,2015Motion to Quash the subpoena duces tecum served on DA COR.

DA COR served its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's subpoena onDecember 14, 20 IS. On December 23, 20 IS, I spoke with Plaintiff to discuss DACOR's objections to the subpoena, specifically with regard to the requests fordocuments contained in Defendant's personnel file. We agreed to narrow thescope of the subpoena to certain categories of documents that I did not believewere part ofPlaintitTs internal personnel file. At the time, 1was under theimpression that there could be documents related to Plaintiffs complaints aboutDefendant that were not part of Plaintiffs internal personnel file; however, 1havejust learned that this is not the case. Any and all documents regarding anyinvestigation performed by the Los Angeles County DA's Office into Plaintiffscomplaints against Defendant are indeed part of Plaintiffs internal personnel file.

As Defendant correctly states in his Motion to Quash, Defendant has "aprima facie right to and expectation of privacy to [his] personnel records underCalifornia law." See Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoenas at 2, citing Oliverav. ViZZlISi, 2010 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 125083 * IS (E.D.Cal., Nov. 12,2010).Moreover. such personnel files are protected from disclosure by the OfficialInformation Privilege. Califiirnia Evidence Code Section 1040 (OfficialGovernment Infonnation). Califiirnia Government Code Section 6254. and theDeliberative Process Privilege. Further. Plaintiff has presented no facts or

1I0AI873792,I

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 328 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 2

Hon. George J. HazelJanuary 8, 2016Page 2

argument that Defendant's personnel records have any bearing or relevance to theinstant case so as to overcome DA COR's - and Defendant's - overwhelmingprivacy interests in its internal personnel files.

I spoke with Plaintiff today and informed him that I would be sending thisletter in support of Defendant's Motion to Quash, and that in accordance with ourprior conversation, DA COR will produce to Plaintiff the documents that are notpart of DA COR's personnel files.

Respectfully submitted,

MARY C. WICKHAMCounty Counsel

ByANACHOIenior Associate County Counsel

Law Enforcement Services Division

cc: Brett KimberlinT. Bruce Godfrey (counsel for Patrick Frey)

1I0A 1873792.1

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 328 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 2

0000000100000002