In City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1135, the Sixth District Court of Appeal found that the defendant had failed to make the requisite good cause showing. "Defendant merely made conclusory statements asserting officer misconduct ('"voluntary consent to enter was not in fact obtained by the officers"') without providing a specific factual scenario for the alleged misconduct ('the specifics of the allegedly improper police conduct'). ( City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1139, 1149 . . . .) The appellate court concluded that absent a specific factual scenario, 'the trial court could not determine whether "the discovery or disclosure sought" was material to "the subject matter involved in the pending litigation."' ( Id. at p. 1149 . . . .)" ( California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1020-1021, discussing City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th 1135.) In City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1998) the defendant was charged with receiving stolen property and possession of a firearm by a felon after a search of his residence by four officers. ( Id. at p. 1138.) According to the police report, police officers went to the defendant's home during his absence. Defendant's girlfriend gave the officers permission to enter and search the house. During the search, the officers recovered a revolver in a jacket the girlfriend identified as belonging to defendant. (Ibid.) In a pretrial discovery motion, defendant requested production of the personnel files of the police officers involved in the search and seizure. ( Id. at pp. 1138-1139.) When the trial court granted defendant's motion, the City of San Jose sought review of the order. ( Id. at p. 1138.) The Court of Appeal concluded that defense counsel's affidavit failed to establish good cause for production of the police officers' personnel records, and ordered the trial court to vacate its decision to grant defendant's discovery motion. ( Id. at pp. 1146, 1150-1151.) The affidavit stated in part: "'Defendant disputes the truthfulness of the allegations as set forth in the police report. At a motion to suppress and at trial if necessary, defendant intends to show the following: a. That knowing and voluntary consent to enter was not in fact obtained by the officers; b. That material misrepresentations in the police report and/or in court testimony were made in order to conceal that fact; c. That evidence disclosed during that search was mishandled by the officers to such an extent as to deny defendant a fair trial.'" ( Id. at p. 1139.) That portion of the declaration stating that "'knowing and voluntary consent to enter was not in fact obtained by the officers'" was found to be wanting because the "declaration did not specify whether the officers coerced the person granting entry into consenting (and if so, what means of coercion the police employed), or whether the officers simply failed to obtain the person's consent. The police report sheds no further light on this issue." ( Id. at p. 1147.) With respect to the allegation that "'material misrepresentations in the police report and/or in court testimony were made in order to conceal' the fact that 'knowing and voluntary consent to enter was not in fact obtained by the officers,'" the court held that "defendant did not specify which particular statement or statements in the police report or in the officers' testimony contained material misrepresentations, nor did he explain in what respect the statements were incorrect." (Ibid.) As to the allegation that "'evidence disclosed during that search was mishandled by the officers to such an extent as to deny defendant a fair trial,'" the court stated: "Defendant not only failed to specify which item or items of evidence were mishandled but also failed to specify how the evidence was mishandled. The declaration did not assert that booking evidence at central supply was an improper procedure, or that the evidence was not in fact booked at central supply, or that the evidence was mishandled in some other respect." (Ibid.) The court concluded that the defendant did not show good cause for discovery because the supporting declaration stated only conclusory allegations and not a specific factual scenario. It noted that the declaration did not specify what material misrepresentations were in the police report or explain how any of the report's statements were false. ( Id. at p. 1147.) The court stated: "The allegations in the supporting declaration were too general to allow the trial court to properly determine whether 'the discovery or disclosure sought' would be material to 'the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.'" ( Id. at p. 1150.)