Civilian oversight panel sues LA Sheriff’s Department over failure to release use-of-force documents

The Los Angeles Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission on Monday sued the Sheriff’s Department for allegedly failing to comply with three subpoenas seeking information involving a deputy shooting and two deputy beatings.

The legal action seeks to force the department to comply with the subpoenas.

The panel first issued the subpoenas in February 2025. Sheriff Robert Luna responded with extensively redacted documents, arguing much of the information was confidential.

But a new state law that took effect this year grants civilian law enforcement oversight boards access to previously restricted confidential peace officer records during misconduct investigations.

The chair of the commission said access to such records is essential to civilian oversight.

“Independent review must occur,” said Hans Johnson. “Internal review is not sufficient. Internal review does not build public confidence.”

After the state law was enacted Jan. 1, Luna and the county lawyers who advise him offered a different argument for not fully complying with the subpoenas. They said the sheriff must meet and confer with the union that represents rank and file deputies before releasing confidential information.

Robert Bonner, a former chair of the civilian panel who is now representing the commission on a pro bono basis, called the argument “ridiculous.”

“This is state law that says we can do this,” he said. “There’s no legal requirement to meet and confer with the unions so they can modify or delay in any way the enforcement of these subpoenas.”

A statement from the Sheriff’s Department said the agency “embraces oversight, transparency and accountability; however, we must follow the law.”

The department also said recent court cases have warned against bypassing the meet and confer process, and that the county was "obligated to work with labor on the impact the implementation of laws has on our employees.”

“As a result, the better course is to complete the meet and confer process and ensure that all concerns are addressed and that the voices of our employees are heard in this important process,” the department added.

The subpoenas involve three incidents.

One of them seeks all investigative materials relating to Andres Guardado, an 18-year-old who was fatally shot in the back after a brief foot chase in West Rancho Dominguez in 2020. The two deputies involved in the shooting were later sentenced to federal prison for an unrelated incident. The two admitted to kidnapping and abusing a skateboarder.

The information provided to the civilian commission on this incident was heavily redacted, according to the lawsuit.

“Particularly troubling is the complete redaction of a 60-page ‘Supplemental Report’ from the Homicide Bureau investigation as it appears to relate to the investigation of allegations that the deputy sheriff who shot and killed Andres Guardado may have aspired to become a member of a Deputy Gang called the Executioners,” the lawsuit states.

A second subpoena requests information related to Emmet Brock, a 23-year-old transgender man who was violently taken down by a deputy outside a 7-Eleven in 2023 after Brock had given the deputy the middle finger. The deputy later pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights violation.

At least eight other deputies were relieved of duty for allegedly helping the deputy cover up his misconduct.

The third subpoena involves the case of Joseph Perez, who was beaten by deputies from the Industry Sheriff’s Station in East Valinda in 2020. The department deemed the actions by deputies were within policy. Perez has filed a civil rights lawsuit.

Bonner warned that if the Sheriff’s Department is successful in blocking access to confidential records in these and other cases, oversight of the agency will be very difficult.

“It will never be an effective oversight commission,” Bonner said. “It will just be window dressing.”

He added that county lawyers clearly have a conflict of interest in the matter, representing both the sheriff and the oversight panel.

County counsel did not respond to a request for comment.