What is the test for a motion for discovery of a law enforcement officer's personnel file?

"When a trial court concludes a defendant's Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer's personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all 'potentially relevant' documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself. [Citation.] A law enforcement officer's personnel record will commonly contain many documents that would, in the normal case, be irrelevant to a Pitchess motion, including those describing marital status and identifying family members, employment applications, letters of recommendation, promotion records, and health records. (See Pen. Code, 832.8.) Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant's Pitchess request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review. But if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court. Such practice is consistent with the premise of Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 that the locus of decisionmaking is to be the trial court, not the prosecution or the custodian of records. The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant's Pitchess motion. A court reporter should be present to document the custodian's statements, as well as any questions the trial court may wish to ask the custodian regarding the completeness of the record. [Citation.]" (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229 (Mooc).)

"'"A motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is 'addressed solely to the sound discretion of the trial court.' [Citation.] A review of the lower court ruling is subject to the abuse of discretion standard."' [Citation.]" (People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 670.) We have reviewed the sealed transcripts of the in camera proceedings, which we find constitute an adequate record of the trial court's review of any documents

Page 10