Brady List Request (Ontario Police Department)

Kathleen me dieta filed this request with the Ontario Police Department of Ontario, CA.
Tracking #


Multi Request Brady List Request
Est. Completion None
No Responsive Documents


From: Kathleen me dieta

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

In accordance with California Penal Code §832.7 (b)(1), as amended by SB 1421, I am requesting all "Brady lists," "Giglio lists," "potential impeachment disclosure lists," or any similar compiled records or lists of records of the type set forth in California Penal Code §832.7 (b)(1)(C). That is, "Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of 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 sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence."

In particular, the records I am seeking would provide a list of law enforcement officers in your jurisdiction whose involvement in a criminal proceeding would have to be disclosed as potentially exculpatory evidence in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 450 U.S. 150 (1972). I am making this request for both sworn employees and non-sworn employees. At a minimum, please include the full name, serial number, and agency of employment; separate lists for each agency in your jurisdiction are fine. If possible, please also include the date of inclusion on the list and any descriptive information relating to the reason for inclusion on the list. If redactions are made, please be sure to justify how the redaction "clearly outweighs" the public interest of disclosure per Government Code §6255.

The time limit of this request is the previous 10 years, or to the maximum extent possible under your agency's records retention schedule if less than 10 years. To be clear, while SB 1421 went into effect on January 1, 2019, in accordance with the recent appellate decision in Walnut Creek Police Officers’ Association v. City of Walnut Creek et al. which unsuccessfully challenged retro-activity, your agency is required by law to produce such records created prior to January 1, 2019 as well as those records created after the effective date.

I would remind you of the County's obligation under Gov. Code, § 6253.1 and Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1417 to assist requestors in identifying records that are responsive to the request or the purpose of the request, and describe the information technology and physical location in which the record or records exist. In addition, Gov. Code, § 6253.1, subds. (a)(1)-(3) requires the County to provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the record or records. In short, a blanket denial for this reason is unacceptable; rather, the County is obligated to help advance the request.

It is presumed that lawmakers understand the context in which they make laws. The legislature, in passing SB 1421, clearly decided that the public interest in bringing police misconduct to light outweighed personal privacy concerns. That said, I certainly understand if limited redactions, like home addresses, are necessary to protect sensitive information or if additional redactions are needed to protect ongoing investigations. As to the constitutionality, Prop 59 also enshrined public transparency in the California constitution and has been repeatedly litigated and upheld in cases with more personal privacy implications in the decade and a half since its passing.

Brady material is provided to prosecutors to fulfill their duty to ensure a fair trial, not for representation. Once again, lawmakers enacted SB 1421 with full knowledge of this context and still decided to move ahead with transparency.

Please send any responses or correspondence to

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.


Kathleen me dieta

From: Ontario Police Department


In response to Public Records Request 20-PR1029 please see attached.

Thank you

Melissa A. Mendoza
Records Specialist
City of Ontario
City Clerk/Records Management Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 395-2165 Voice
(909) 395-2395 Fax<>