“The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” — Psalm 119:130
2.3
This appendix constitutes the record material relevant to appellant Philip A. Kok’s claims against the City of Pasadena and multiple Pasadena Police Department officers arising from a February 3, 2000 use-of-force incident. Materials include amendments to the complaint, motions to compel discovery under Evidence Code §1043, supporting declarations, proofs of service, court minutes, responses to motions in limine, and a partial police crime report. Collectively, these documents illustrate the factual contours of the event, the identity of the involved officers, contested discovery, and the appellant’s efforts from 2001–2002 to obtain personnel and complaint-history information essential to litigating his claims.
The appendix begins with multiple amendments to the operative complaint, filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §474. These amendments replace fictitious Doe defendants with identified Pasadena officers. Officers Timothy Mosman, Bradley May, Henry Rosner, Walt Gamberale, and Calvin Pratt are substituted as Does 2 through 6. Later amendments identify Officer Robert Dollar and civilian employee Evangelina Bustamante. These amendments reflect appellant’s progressive identification of officers via partial disclosures, court proceedings, and his own investigation. Each named individual was served through documented proofs of mailing or personal service.
The primary discovery disputes define the case. The first major filing is the July 23, 2001 Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Pursuant to Evidence Code §1043. It arises from the City’s refusal to produce officer photographs for identification. Appellant asserts that he was forcibly detained after a minor auto incident and that multiple officers participated in or witnessed the use of force, handcuffing, and verbal derision while he was restrained. He contends he can identify officers if allowed to view their official photographs. The City claimed such photographs constitute personnel-file material subject to statutory privilege.
The motion details the incident: Officers Brown and Mosman forcibly restrained appellant after concluding he was speaking too loudly, struck him with a baton, placed him face-down, applied body weight to his back, and affixed handcuffs causing significant pain and circulation issues. Additional officers arrived; two allegedly ignored complaints and mocked him. Identification of these officers is central to evidentiary resolution, as only access to personnel photographs could clarify who participated and in what capacity.
The September 4, 2001 Motion to Compel Discovery expands the request to personnel files and complaint histories. Appellant seeks evidence of potential patterns of misconduct or departmental indifference. After filing a formal complaint, he received no acknowledgment, explanation of findings, or indication of corrective action. He interprets this silence as systemic non-responsiveness.
Appellant references anecdotal reports of mistreatment by Pasadena officers to justify inquiry into historical patterns. Requested records include prior citizen complaints, investigations, disciplinary actions, or related materials spanning the prior decade. He consents to redaction of officer names for unrelated individuals, balancing privacy and evidentiary need.
Appellant also raises concerns about medical-records discovery. He complied with the City’s initial request, yet later requests for admissions were objected to because documents were missing. Once corrected, the City claimed authenticity could not be verified. Appellant presents this sequence as evidence of discovery gamesmanship and obstructive conduct.
Dispatch communications present additional obstacles. The City claimed no transcript existed due to “mechanical failure.” A second subpoena sought failure-frequency data; the supervisor provided vague assurances and later refused further discussion. Appellant views this as obstructive departmental conduct that hindered access to material evidence.
Appellant also describes disparaging remarks from opposing counsel questioning his integrity, mental health, and religious faith. These statements are cited as evidence of a hostile litigation environment and potential bad-faith motivations behind the City’s resistance to disclosure.
Court Minutes from August 22, 2001 and October 11, 2001 are included. The October 11 minutes note that Judge Pluim denied one motion as “overly broad,” relevant to the management of Evidence Code §1043 requests and discovery scope. These entries provide official documentation of procedural rulings.
Replies to the defense’s opposition to the Pitchess Motion, Requests for Judicial Notice, and responses to motions in limine demonstrate appellant’s effort to introduce evidence about officers’ identities, complaint histories, and investigative conduct. One motion in limine sought to strike claims like false arrest or limit personnel information references. Appellant argued that such restrictions would improperly constrain factual presentation. The Request for Judicial Notice draws attention to materials regarding the City attorney’s professional conduct.
The February 19, 2002 Motion for Summary Judgment, partially included, contains supporting declarations from process servers Shelly Peutet and Nils Grevillius. The motion was denied April 29, 2002, confirming unresolved triable issues of fact. The incomplete production of personnel and complaint records likely contributed to the court’s determination that factual issues remained.
Exhibit 104, the Alleged Use-of-Force Policy, highlights the relevance of departmental standards to officer conduct and municipal liability. Deviations or insufficient enforcement support claims of excessive force or deliberate indifference.
Proofs of Service throughout the appendix document proper delivery of all motions, amendments, oppositions, and discovery requests. Executed under penalty of perjury, they demonstrate procedural compliance and preservation of objections necessary for appellate review.
The appendix concludes with a partially reproduced Pasadena Police Department Crime Report from February 3, 2000. Visible portions list officers, badge numbers, dispatch info, appellant identifiers, and vehicle data. Officers Brown and Mosman are corroborated. The report ends abruptly at “GANG AFFILI”, indicating incompleteness and raising questions about the thoroughness of investigative documentation.
In sum, this appendix establishes a detailed procedural and evidentiary framework for appellant’s claims. It documents efforts to identify officers, obtain personnel and complaint records, and compel discovery while encountering repeated obstruction. The trial court’s rulings—denials of certain discovery requests as “overly broad” and denial of summary judgment—form the basis for potential appellate review of whether statutory standards governing personnel-file discovery were appropriately applied. Although the appendix concludes with an incomplete police report, preceding sections provide a sufficiently detailed record of contested issues, procedural rulings, and evidentiary disputes central to the appeal.
