What is the test for in camera screening of a law enforcement officer's file?

Defendant requests that this court independently review the transcript from the May 20, 2009, in camera hearing and any records produced by the custodian of records at the hearing, to determine if the hearing was properly conducted and whether all materials that should have been produced were in fact produced. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216.)

"For approximately a quarter-century our trial courts have entertained what have become known as Pitchess motions, screening law enforcement personnel files in camera for evidence that may be relevant to a criminal defendant's defense." (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1225, fn. omitted.) Prior to a court conducting an in camera screening, a defendant must establish "good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought.' " ⁴ (Id. at p. 1226.) "When a trial court concludes a defendant's Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer's personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all 'potentially relevant' documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself. [Citation.] . . . Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant's Pitchess request need not be

Page 9

presented to the trial court for in camera review. But if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court. . . . The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to defendant's Pitchess motion." (Id. at pp. 1228-1229.) "[I]n cases . . . where the custodian of records does not produce the entire personnel file for the court's review, he or she must establish on the record what documents or category of documents were included in the complete personnel file. . . . [I]f it is not readily apparent from the nature of the documents that they are nonresponsive or irrelevant to the discovery request, the custodian must explain his or her decision to withhold them." (People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 69.)