In People v. Northup (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 549, pursuant to a Pitchess motion, the trial court ordered the Sheriff's Department to disclose the names and addresses of "anyone who had filed against the deputies a complaint alleging that they had lied, planted evidence, made false arrests, or fabricated probable cause or police reports," but denied the motion to the extent it sought any other information. ( Northup, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 555.) The trial court denied a second Pitchess motion, which sought any complaints filed by a specific person whom the Sheriff's Department had identified in response to the trial court's order, but whom the defendant had been unable to locate, concluding that such documents were not discoverable, nor relevant and, if relevant, not admissible. The trial court also denied the defendant's Brady motion requesting "discovery of Brady material contained in police personnel files" and dismissal of the case as a sanction for failing to provide the requested information. ( Id. at pp. 555-557.) On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution had an affirmative duty under Brady to investigate the personnel files of all significant police officer witnesses and to disclose to the defense any complaints that may exculpate the defendant or impeach the police officer witness. ( Id. at p. 564.) The appellate court rejected this contention, concluding that the sheriff's department was not acting as a part of the prosecution team when it compiled and maintained its personnel files. The prosecutor therefore "did not possess the files at issue for purposes of Brady, and had no duty thereunder either to determine whether they contained favorable and material evidence, or to disclose any such evidence. No 'suppression of any such evidence by the State' occurred." ( Id. at p. 565.)