DISCUSSION

We agree with the parties that respondent erred by ordering disclosure of Pitchess

materials to the People. Our Supreme Court has held "the prosecution has no automatic

entitlement to defense-initiated Pitchess discovery." (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29

Cal.4th 1033, 1046, fn. 6.) Unless the prosecution itself seeks Pitchess discovery and

complies with the statutory motion procedure, "peace officer personnel records retain

their confidentiality vis-à-vis the prosecution." (Id. at p. 1046.) Since the prosecution

did not make a Pitchess motion, it is not entitled to receive the information respondent

ordered disclosed to Rodriguez.

We further conclude issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

appropriate because the material facts are not in dispute, the law is well-settled, and

Rodriguez has conceded respondent's error. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1088; Lewis v.

Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1240-1241; Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009)

175 Cal.App.4th 830, 842.)

3

DISPOSITION

Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondent to vacate the portion of its order

of May 20, 2014, that Pitchess discovery materials be disclosed to the People. In all

other respects, the petition is denied. The stay previously issued by this court is

dissolved. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ proceeding. (Cal. Rules of

Court, rule 8.493(a)(1)(B).)

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

4