A veteran prosecutor for the City Attorney’s Office who sued the city of Los Angeles alleging that he was retaliated against for complaining that the office’s criminal branch failed to comply with requirements regarding the safekeeping of digital evidence says the city’s motion to compel arbitration is moot.
Deputy City Attorney David Bozanich’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit alleges whistleblower retaliation. In a previous filing, the City Attorney’s Office argues that Bozanich invoked the arbitration provisions of a collective bargaining agreement in October 2023 and demanded arbitration on the same claim and events alleged in his lawsuit, but then filed the civil complaint anyway last Aug. 8 while the arbitration hearing was pending.
The City Attorney’s Office also is asking that Bozanich’s lawsuit be put on hold until arbitration is completed. But in court papers filed Monday, Bozanich’s lawyers state there is no point to hearing the city’s motion because arbitration already took place in late January.
Bozanich’s attorneys further state in their filing that his arbitration of his grievance was “not in lieu of, and should not be construed to be in lieu of, his civil action.”
Bozanich does not oppose staying his case pending the outcome of the arbitration, the plaintiff’s lawyers further state in their court papers. A hearing on the city’s arbitration motion is scheduled March 21 before Judge Teresa A. Beaudet.
According to his suit, Bozanich was hired in 2002 and has been assigned to the criminal branch ever since. The suit further states that his career was on an upward track for 21 years. Bozanich worked as a prosecuting attorney and later was instrumental in the establishment of a new unit in 2017 that established policies and practices for employees accessing, maintaining and using technology, including police body-worn camera evidence, according to the complaint.
But starting in May 2021 and continuing into the next year, Bozanich frequently disclosed to his supervisors verbally and by email that the criminal branch was out of compliance with state and federal requirements pertaining to the storage of digital criminal offender record information, the suit alleges.
Bozanich believed the alleged irregularities were violations of the state Code of Regulations and state Government Code, plus other applicable federal, state and local statutes, rules and regulations.
In July 2023, Bozanich was transferred to a position in the Pacific office as a line deputy in alleged retaliation for speaking out, the suit alleges. He now works on individual cases, but does not make policy recommendations, create or revise protocols or conduct training for other attorneys or support staff, the suit states.