The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego

Opinion

THE ESTATE OF ELISA SERNA, et Case No.: 20-cv-2096-BAS-DDL al., ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiffs, PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO v. RECONSIDER AND TO STRIKE AND SEAL CIRB-RELATED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., DOCUMENTS Defendants. [Dkt. No. 526]

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

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 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 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 Considering the Court’s ruling, the hearing scheduled for August 5, 2025 at 1/11:00 a.m. is VACATED. Dated: July 28, 2025 eae Theil □□□ 4 ‘Hon. DavidD.Leshner □□□ United States Magistrate Judge 1]