Justino Rupard v. County of San Diego
3:23-cv-01357
S.D. Cal.Feb 5, 2025Background
- Lonnie Rupard died in custody at San Diego Central Jail in March 2022, allegedly due to neglected schizophrenia, malnutrition, and pneumonia, raising claims of civil rights violations against the County of San Diego.
- Following Rupard's death, the San Diego Sheriff's Department convened a Critical Incident Review Board (CIRB) to review the incident and similar in-custody deaths.
- Plaintiff, as administrator of Rupard’s estate, sought CIRB documents relating to these reviews in support of Monell claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the County had notice of deficiencies in inmate care.
- The County withheld CIRB documents, asserting various privileges, including attorney-client, work product, and official information/law enforcement privileges, and raised privacy concerns.
- The Plaintiff moved to compel, arguing CIRB documents are not privileged and are relevant and necessary for Monell liability; several prior district court decisions in the Southern District of California had found for disclosure of CIRB reports.
- The Court undertook in camera review of the documents and addressed the County's alleged discovery misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-client privilege | CIRB's main purpose is non-legal; past cases deny privilege | CIRB reports prepared primarily for legal advice, thus privileged | Not privileged—primary purpose is investigative/remedial |
| Attorney work-product doctrine | County failed to show reports were prepared for litigation | Reports created in anticipation of litigation, not in ordinary course | Not protected, except where legal advisor's mental impressions |
| Official information/law enforcement privilege | Declarations are insufficient; protective order is adequate | Disclosure harms gov't/privacy interests; declarations from prior cases relied on | Not applicable—County failed to make threshold showing |
| Privacy protections | Protective order/targeted redactions suffice | Reports contain sensitive 3rd party info; exposure could harm non-parties | Protective order sufficiently addresses privacy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2002) (attorney-client privilege is strictly construed)
- United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2011) (work-product doctrine 'because of' test and dual-purpose documents)
- Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1990) (qualified privilege for official information)
- Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (case-by-case balancing for official information privilege)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (standards for municipal liability under § 1983)