Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Virgina Keeny granted a court order in a lawsuit by a L.A. Police Department officer who’s suing L.A. over the department’s response to what she described as a horrific invasion of her privacy by her ex-husband, who also was a police officer at the time.
Keeny’s order April 17 granted Lamas’ attorney a motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records, which is known as a Pitchess motion.
Such an order compels the release of a peace officer’s service record, which is usually confidential, through a show of good cause.
Brady Lamas, 45, pleaded no contest in March 2024 to one count of the state’s revenge-porn law, after his now ex-wife, Anna Lamas, of Valencia, found out he had disseminated nude photos of her to their co-workers and in online chats.
Brady Lamas was stripped of his officer certification, ordered to attend a program for sexual addiction and given community service at his sentencing as the result of a plea deal.
Now Anna Lamas’ lawsuit is targeting the city over its alleged failure to address what she described as harassment and discrimination she faced at work as a result of her husband’s actions and the response from their coworkers and superior officers.
Her claims in court indicate she told her supervisor right away, who helped her file a report with Internal Affairs, which booked her phone as evidence.
However, when Anna Lamas returned to work about two weeks later, two of her fellow officers listed in the complaint “would routinely see plaintiff and subject her to sexual harassment.”
Specifically, Anna Lamas’ counsel is seeking the records from the department’s Internal Affairs investigation, as well as any and all complaints related to sexual harassment involving the two officers she claimed continued to harass her.
“Plaintiff requests the recorded interviews and all documents related to the investigations in their entirety in order to demonstrate that the IA investigation into plaintiff’s complaint was inadequate and/or biased,” according to the lawsuit.
Attorneys for the city of Los Angeles sought to deny the release on the grounds that Lamas’ counsel failed to show good cause, calling the requests “overly broad” and “unduly burdensome.”
The LAPD’s counsel argued any release of the records should be done only after an “in camera” review, which is a legal term referring to a judge’s private review of confidential or sensitive information.
A further hearing on the discussion of the motion is scheduled for May 2 in Downtown Los Angeles.
