The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego

S.D. California

The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego

DecidedJuly 28, 2025

Docket3:20-cv-02096

StatusUnknown

This text of The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego (The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE ESTATE OF ELISA SERNA, et Case No.: 20-cv-2096-BAS-DDL al., 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiffs, 13 PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO v. RECONSIDER AND TO STRIKE 14 AND SEAL CIRB-RELATED 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., DOCUMENTS Defendants. 16 [Dkt. No. 526]

19 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Reconsider and to 20 Strike and Seal CIRB1 Related Documents. Dkt. No. 526. Due to a February 2025 21 court ruling in Greer v. County of San Diego, 127 F.4th 1216 (9th Cir. 2025), the 22 parties seek an order from the Court (1) reconsidering its Augst 30, 2023 order 23 compelling the production of CIRB reports and other information, (2) striking 24 documents from the docket that contain privileged CIRB information, (3) destroying 25 26 27 28 1 various lodgments, and (4) sealing current expert reports and portions of 2 depositions that contain confidential CIRB information. Id. 3 BACKGROUND 4 On October 7, 2022, the court in Greer v. County of San Diego, 634 5 F.Supp.3d 911, 921 (S.D. Cal. 2022) held that the attorney-client privilege did not 6 apply to CIRB Reports as their primary purpose is investigative and remedial in 7 nature, not to obtain legal advice. 8 On August 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying 9 in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Dkt. No. 220. In the 10 order, the Court concluded that thirty-three of the thirty-five CIRB Reports at issue 11 contained information relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, were not protected by the 12 attorney-client privilege, and that their production was proportional to the needs of 13 the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Id. 14 On October 4, 2023, the County produced the redacted CIRB reports to 15 Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 526 at 2. 16 On February 10, 2025, the Ninth Circuit held the CIRB Reports at issue in 17 Greer are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Greer, 127 F.4th at 1219. 18 The Ninth Circuit determined that the lower court erred in determining that “the 19 primary purpose of the CIRB, and the documents it generates, is not to obtain legal 20 advice.” Id. at 1224. 21 On March 17, 2025, Intervenors-Appellees, The San Diego Union Tribune, 22 LLC; Prison Legal News; and Voice of San Diego filed a Petition for Rehearing and 23 Rehearing En Banc. See Case No. 23-55607 at Dkt. No. 76-1. 24 On April 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit directed Appellant to file a response to the 25 Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Id. at Dkt. No. 26 81. Defendant-Appellant filed a Response to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc 27 on May 28, 2025. Id. at Dkt. No. 86. 28 On June 27, 2025, the parties filed the instant motion. Dkt. No. 526. 1 PARTIES’ POSITION 2 The parties request that the Court reconsider its August 30, 2023 Order 3 Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of 4 Documents. ECF No. 526. Specifically, the parties ask the Court to reconsider its 5 order requiring the County to produce CIRB records and the related CIRB 6 spreadsheet. Id. at 2. In support, the parties argue that in light of Greer, wherein 7 the Ninth Circuit held that the County’s CIRB Reports and spreadsheet were 8 privileged and should be returned or deleted, the Court should reconsider its prior 9 ruling. Id. The parties note that since Greer, other courts in this district have 10 granted the County’s requests for reconsideration and found the County’s CIRB 11 Reports and spreadsheet to be privileged. Id. 12 The parties also seek an order striking documents from the Court’s record 13 and destroying lodgments that contain privileged CIRB information. ECF No. 526 14 at 3-4. Finally, the parties seek an order sealing certain documents on the docket. 15 Id. at 5. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The Court DENIES the parties’ Joint Motion to Reconsider and to Strike and 18 Seal CIRB Related Documents without prejudice to refiling the motion pending 19 resolution of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in Greer.2 The parties shall 20 notify the Court within three (3) business days of the conclusion of the proceedings 21 in Greer. 22 23

24 25 2 Should the parties refile their motion, they must comply with the Court’s rules, Chambers Rules, and CM/ECF policies and procedures. A quality control email was sent to counsel from 26 the Clerk’s Office addressing the deficiencies in the instant motion. See Docket. Additionally, if the parties file a motion to seal, they must simultaneously file redacted versions of the documents 27 they are seeking to have sealed. Finally, the parties should keep in mind that the Court is unable to strike or seal portions of documents. The Court can only strike or seal a document in its 28 | Considering the Court’s ruling, the hearing scheduled for August 5, 2025 at 2 1/11:00 a.m. is VACATED. 3 IIT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: July 28, 2025 eae Theil □□□ 4 6 ‘Hon. DavidD.Leshner □□□ 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE ESTATE OF ELISA SERNA, et Case No.: 20-cv-2096-BAS-DDL al., 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiffs, 13 PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO v. RECONSIDER AND TO STRIKE 14 AND SEAL CIRB-RELATED 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., DOCUMENTS Defendants. 16 [Dkt. No. 526]

19 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Reconsider and to 20 Strike and Seal CIRB1 Related Documents. Dkt. No. 526. Due to a February 2025 21 court ruling in Greer v. County of San Diego, 127 F.4th 1216 (9th Cir. 2025), the 22 parties seek an order from the Court (1) reconsidering its Augst 30, 2023 order 23 compelling the production of CIRB reports and other information, (2) striking 24 documents from the docket that contain privileged CIRB information, (3) destroying 25 26 27 28 1 various lodgments, and (4) sealing current expert reports and portions of 2 depositions that contain confidential CIRB information. Id. 3 BACKGROUND 4 On October 7, 2022, the court in Greer v. County of San Diego, 634 5 F.Supp.3d 911, 921 (S.D. Cal. 2022) held that the attorney-client privilege did not 6 apply to CIRB Reports as their primary purpose is investigative and remedial in 7 nature, not to obtain legal advice. 8 On August 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying 9 in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Dkt. No. 220. In the 10 order, the Court concluded that thirty-three of the thirty-five CIRB Reports at issue 11 contained information relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, were not protected by the 12 attorney-client privilege, and that their production was proportional to the needs of 13 the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Id. 14 On October 4, 2023, the County produced the redacted CIRB reports to 15 Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 526 at 2. 16 On February 10, 2025, the Ninth Circuit held the CIRB Reports at issue in 17 Greer are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Greer, 127 F.4th at 1219. 18 The Ninth Circuit determined that the lower court erred in determining that “the 19 primary purpose of the CIRB, and the documents it generates, is not to obtain legal 20 advice.” Id. at 1224. 21 On March 17, 2025, Intervenors-Appellees, The San Diego Union Tribune, 22 LLC; Prison Legal News; and Voice of San Diego filed a Petition for Rehearing and 23 Rehearing En Banc. See Case No. 23-55607 at Dkt. No. 76-1. 24 On April 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit directed Appellant to file a response to the 25 Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Id. at Dkt. No. 26 81. Defendant-Appellant filed a Response to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc 27 on May 28, 2025. Id. at Dkt. No. 86. 28 On June 27, 2025, the parties filed the instant motion. Dkt. No. 526. 1 PARTIES’ POSITION 2 The parties request that the Court reconsider its August 30, 2023 Order 3 Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of 4 Documents. ECF No. 526. Specifically, the parties ask the Court to reconsider its 5 order requiring the County to produce CIRB records and the related CIRB 6 spreadsheet. Id. at 2. In support, the parties argue that in light of Greer, wherein 7 the Ninth Circuit held that the County’s CIRB Reports and spreadsheet were 8 privileged and should be returned or deleted, the Court should reconsider its prior 9 ruling. Id. The parties note that since Greer, other courts in this district have 10 granted the County’s requests for reconsideration and found the County’s CIRB 11 Reports and spreadsheet to be privileged. Id. 12 The parties also seek an order striking documents from the Court’s record 13 and destroying lodgments that contain privileged CIRB information. ECF No. 526 14 at 3-4. Finally, the parties seek an order sealing certain documents on the docket. 15 Id. at 5. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The Court DENIES the parties’ Joint Motion to Reconsider and to Strike and 18 Seal CIRB Related Documents without prejudice to refiling the motion pending 19 resolution of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in Greer.2 The parties shall 20 notify the Court within three (3) business days of the conclusion of the proceedings 21 in Greer. 22 23

24 25 2 Should the parties refile their motion, they must comply with the Court’s rules, Chambers Rules, and CM/ECF policies and procedures. A quality control email was sent to counsel from 26 the Clerk’s Office addressing the deficiencies in the instant motion. See Docket. Additionally, if the parties file a motion to seal, they must simultaneously file redacted versions of the documents 27 they are seeking to have sealed. Finally, the parties should keep in mind that the Court is unable to strike or seal portions of documents. The Court can only strike or seal a document in its 28 | Considering the Court’s ruling, the hearing scheduled for August 5, 2025 at 2 1/11:00 a.m. is VACATED. 3 IIT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: July 28, 2025 eae Theil □□□ 4 6 ‘Hon. DavidD.Leshner □□□ 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-estate-of-elisa-serna-v-county-of-san-diego-casd-2025.