DISCUSSION

Petitioner does not dispute that complaints alleging that Detective Avila engaged in acts of dishonesty are material. It argues the trial court was required to examine the detective’s records in camera and disclose only those materials, if any, that were relevant to the pending litigation. Petitioner is correct. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226 [after examining records in chambers, subject to statutory exceptions, “the trial court should then disclose to the defendant ‘such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.’ [Citation.]”].) Petitioner contends that the information ordered disclosed is not relevant to the underlying case. Once again, petitioner is correct. We have examined the two complaints at issue. Without divulging the precise nature of the allegations made against Detective Avila, suffice it to say that neither complainant accused him of engaging in any dishonest behavior. One stated the detective approached and accused him of being intoxicated. It is telling that the complainant did not deny that he was. Instead, he claimed the detective did not give him a blood alcohol test, failed to read him his Miranda rights,1 and cut his lip during a struggle. The second complainant alleged Avila was rude when he issued a citation and engaged in harassment because he issued citations against her on two occasions. Simply put, neither complaint is relevant to the issues involved in real party’s case. Whether Detective Avila failed to offer a blood alcohol test, allegedly used unnecessary force, or was rude to a citizen has no bearing on real party’s claim that the detective falsely reported real party’s statements during an interview. The trial court erred in ordering the disclosure of the two complaints. 3

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its August 20, 2013 order granting real party’s discovery motion with respect to the two complaints in Detective Avila’s personnel file. The alternative writ is discharged and the temporary stay is lifted.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUZUKAWA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.

4