The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to compel the production of juvenile dependency records, a request to redact email addresses, and status reports regarding video footage and other documents. The court granted the motion to produce the records subject to confidentiality, granted the request to redact email addresses, and ordered the parties to file a further status report on video blurring while releasing the redacted Fire Department Report from the protective order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Order to Compel Production of Elisa Serna’s Juvenile Dependency Records granted“The parties’ joint motion compelling the production of Elisa Serna’s juvenile dependency records [Dkt. No. 473] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court relied on the relevance of the records, the ability to mitigate privacy concerns via a protective order, and the diminished confidentiality of records for deceased juveniles under California law. This is a standard discovery ruling that balances relevance against privacy, supported by the cited case and statute. |
Defendant Von Lintig’s request to redact email addresses in documents CSD 316-324 granted“Defendant Von Lintig’s request that any email addresses contained in documents CSD 316-324 be redacted, including any hyperlinked email addresses, is GRANTED.” | agree with court Redacting personal contact information like email addresses is a routine protective measure to prevent harassment or privacy violations, and the court's grant of this specific redaction request is consistent with standard discovery practices. |
Parties ordered to file a further status report regarding blurring of video footage SERNA 00335, 36, and 37“The parties are ORDERED to file a further status report regarding their positions as to the proposed blurring of SERNA00335, 36, and 37 by not later than June 2024.” | agree with court The court deferred a final decision on the blurring of video footage to allow the parties to finalize their positions, maintaining confidentiality in the interim. This is a procedural management decision appropriate for ongoing discovery disputes. |
Redacted version of SERNA-00326-00334 released from protective order“The redacted version of SERNA-00326-00334 is no longer subject to the protective order.” | agree with court The parties agreed on the redactions, and the court accepted this agreement, removing the redacted version from the protective order while prohibiting dissemination of the unredacted version. This follows the parties' stipulation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine discovery management order. It correctly applies the relevant case law and statute to balance the need for relevant evidence against privacy concerns, using a protective order as the mitigation mechanism. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural context.
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 al., Case No.: 20-cv-2096-BAS-DDL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. 1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., FOR RELEASE OF JUVENILE DEPENDENCY RECORDS 15 Defendants. [Dkt. No. 473]; 16 2) REQUIRING REDACTIONS 17 TO CSD 316-324; and 18 3) REGARDING REDACTIONS 19 TO SERNA 00335, 36, and 37 20 and SERNA 00326-00334 21 22 Before the Court are the parties’ Joint Motion for Order to Compel Production of 23 Elisa Serna’s Juvenile Dependency Records [Dkt. No. 473]; Plaintiffs’ Status Report 24 Regarding Redactions [Dkt. No. 474]; and Defendant Von Lintig’s Supplemental Briefing 25 Regarding De-Designation of CSD 316-324 [Dkt. No. 475]. Having considered the parties’ 26 various moving papers, the Court ORDERS as follows: 27 1. The parties’ joint motion compelling the production of Elisa Serna’s juvenile 28 dependency records [Dkt. No. 473] is GRANTED. The Court finds that the records are 1 ||relevant to the litigation and that any privacy concerns can be mitigated by designation of 2 || the records pursuant to a protective order. See Meyer v. Cnty. of San Diego, No 21-cv-341- 3 || RSH-BLM, 2024 WL 86603, at **5-6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024) (finding the district court 4 ||has the authority to order production of juvenile case records); see also Cal. Welf. & Inst. 5 Code § 827(a)(2) (recognizing diminished confidentiality of records relating to deceased 6 ||juvenile). The County Defendants are hereby ORDERED to produce Elisa Serna’s 7 ||juvenile dependency records currently in the County Defendants’ possession, custody and 8 || control to all other parties by not later than May 30, 2024. These records shall be treated 9 ||as confidential pursuant to the operative protective order. 10 2. Defendant Von Lintig’s request that any email addresses contained in 11 |}documents CSD 316-324 be redacted, including any hyperlinked email addresses, is 12 GRANTED. See Dkt. No. 475. All parties are ORDERED to redact this information 13 || from documents CSD 316-324 before disseminating or otherwise publishing them. 14 3. The Court is in receipt of the parties’ status reports [Dkt. Nos. 474, 477] and 15 |}understands Defendants are still in the process of reviewing video footage of Elisa Serna 16 |/in her cell. The parties are ORDERED to file a further status report regarding their 17 || positions as to the proposed blurring of SERNA00335, 36, and 37 by not later than June 18 2024. SERNA0O0335, 36, and 37 shall continue to be treated as confidential in the 19 ||interim. The parties report they are in agreement as to Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions to 20 Fire Department Report (SERNA-00326-00334). The redacted version of SERNA- 21 00326-00334 is no longer subject to the protective order. Dissemination of the unredacted 22 document is prohibited. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: May 23, 2024 _—_— 25 Tb hohe A 26 □ Hon. David D. Leshner 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28