Is a plaintiff entitled to the names and addresses of another person who complained that two police officers had used excessive force in the course of arrest?

Indeed, at this stage plaintiffs were entitled, at most, to the names and addresses of other persons who complained the two officers had used excessive force in the course of arrests within five years preceding the plaintiffs' arrest. Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305, the seminal case in this field, found good cause for a request for a law enforcement agency's records of complainants' statements--and even then not the entire investigation files--only because the parties seeking discovery, who already knew the names of other complainants, [191 Cal.App.3d 697] showed they either were unavailable for interviews or could not remember the details of the events about which they had complained. Here, of course, there has been no such showing. Hence the production of more than names and addresses is premature. (Accord, Carruthers v. Municipal Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 439, 168 Cal.Rptr. 33.)

Finally, one of the complaints--concerning a wallet--and portions of another--regarding a dog--did not involve allegations of excessive force in arrests, and for that reason should not have been ordered disclosed. (See People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 658, 685-687, 214 Cal.Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446.)