Maya Lau of the Los Angeles Times reports on the Supreme Court’s grant of review yesterday in Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court.
When it granted review, the court limited the issue to be briefed to this: When a law enforcement agency creates an internal Brady list (see Gov. Code, § 3305.5), and a peace officer on that list is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution, may the agency disclose to the prosecution (a) the name and identifying number of the officer and (b) that the officer may have relevant exonerating or impeaching material in his or her confidential personnel file, or can such disclosure be made only by court order on a properly filed Pitchess motion? (See Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83; People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, §§ 832.7-832.8; Evid. Code, §§ 1043-1045.)
The court didn’t waste any time in granting review. It granted extension requests for the answer to the petition for review and for the reply to the answer (for the reply, the court granted 8 days instead of the requested 14), but it didn’t extend its own time to rule on the petition and granted review only one day after the reply was filed.
There might be no delay in the opinion, either. In a case with a similar issue (and which the court cited in yesterday’s grant order) — People v. Superior Court (Johnson) — the court filed its opinion only eight months after granting review.
