Riske

*298 Robert Riske, a retired Los Angeles police officer, sued the City of Los Angeles alleging the Los Angeles Police Department had retaliated against him for protected whistleblower activity by failing to assign or promote him to several positions and selecting instead less qualified candidates. Riske filed a discovery motion pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 1 to obtain certain summary personnel records relied on by the City in making assignment and promotion decisions. After *299 the superior court erroneously ruled those records were not subject to discovery because the officers selected for the positions Riske sought were innocent third parties who had not witnessed or caused Riske's injury, we issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order denying Riske's discovery motion and to enter a new order directing the City to produce those records for an in camera inspection in accordance with section 1045. (See Riske v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647 , 664-665, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 477 ( Riske I ).) *369 The superior court conducted the in camera hearing and ordered the requested personnel records to be produced in accordance with the…