Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02227/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18-cv-2227-AJB-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.C., et al.; 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Erica Cortez; Kate Jones; The County of 

San Diego, et al.

 Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-2227-AJB-AGS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

(Doc. No. 11)

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike a paragraph from the complaint.

(Doc. No. 11.) Finding the paragraph violates the local rules and prior Court orders, the 

Court GRANTS the motion.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiffs bring claims against the County and two attorneys, Jones and Cortez, for 

accessing juvenile files without prior judicial authorization during a prior case in which the 

defendant attorneys defended the county on allegations of child abuse by plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs allege they had a constitutional right to privacy with respect to their files, and 

that Defendants violated those rights when they accessed them without getting permission. 

Plaintiffs bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendants and a Monell claim against 

the County.

Case 3:18-cv-02227-AJB-AGS Document 41 Filed 07/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-2227-AJB-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A court may strike from a pleading “an insufficient defense or any redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Immaterial and 

impertinent matters are generally defined as allegations which have no bearing or relevance 

on the issues before the Court. See In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Securities Litig., 114 F. Supp. 

2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000). But, “[the] motion . . . should not be granted unless the matter 

to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation. If there 

is any doubt . . . the court should deny the motion.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 

352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citations omitted). The court views the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.

III. MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants argue paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ complaint must be stricken because it 

contains a statement allegedly made during an early neutral evaluation (“ENE”). (Doc. No. 

11-1 at 1.) Defendants argue that under Southern District Local Rule 16.1(c)(1)(b), which 

states that an “ENE conference will be informal, off the record, privileged, and 

confidential” the allegation reveals such privileged information. Paragraph 20 states:

On at least one occasion in, or around, June 19, 2018, County Counsel Kate

Jones, in the presence of Defendant Erica Cortez, admitted that she had 

reviewed confidential and protected documents within the Juvenile Case 

Files pertaining to the Minor Plaintiffs and their family members in case 

number 3:17-cv-00815-MMA-JLB.

(Doc. No. 1 ¶ 20.)

While paragraph 20 does not explicitly reference an ENE, it does mention that 

opposing counsel admitted to something in a related case. What it fails to disclose is that 

the alleged admission was made “at a June 19, 2018 ENE Conference held in the Williams 

lawsuit.” (Doc. No. 11-1 at 2.) Defendants assert “Plaintiffs cannot deny this fact because 

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Order memorializes that allegation made by Plaintiffs’ 

mother (“Williams”).” (Id.) 

In Judge Burkhardt’s order from that case, Judge strongly admonished Plaintiffs’ 

Case 3:18-cv-02227-AJB-AGS Document 41 Filed 07/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-2227-AJB-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

counsel for disclosing the confidential information and sanctioned them. (Case No. 17-cv815-MMA-JLB, Doc. No. 49 at 11–12.) The order states, “[a]s previously recognized in 

this district, ‘disclosure of information exchanged in the confidentiality of a Settlement 

Conference undermines the trust jurists of this Court have earned in the legal community 

and diminishes the integrity and effectiveness of the Settlement Conference process.’

Century Sur. Co. v. 350 W.A., LLC, No. CIV. 05CV1548-LLSP, 2008 WL 1787491, at *3 

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2008). As such, any unauthorized disclosure has served as a basis for 

sanctions against the violating attorney. See id.; see also CivLR 83.1(a).”

Plaintiffs argue that the complaint must be taken as true on its face, and thus should 

reject Defendants’ attempts “to introduce proceedings and records from other cases for the 

truth of the matters asserted within the documents.” (Doc. No. 21 at 8.) However, Plaintiffs 

cannot hide behind a shield of feigned ignorance by purposely leaving out contextual 

information to try and plead something that they very well know is privileged—and have 

been harshly reprimanded as such. Plaintiffs also argue that the admission is publicly 

available because it was referenced in Judge Burkhardt’s order. However, this is plainly 

wrong. The statement was, is, and shall remain confidential.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the reasoning herein, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike. 

(Doc. No. 11.) The Court further ORDERS the Court Clerk to strike paragraph 20 by 

redacting that paragraph from the Complaint, (Doc. No. 1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02227-AJB-AGS Document 41 Filed 07/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3