Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01412-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF RUBEN NUNEZ, 

by and through its successor-ininterest LYDIA NUNEZ, ALBERT 

NUNEZ, and LYDIA NUNEZ,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants, Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

CORRECTIONAL PHYSICIANS 

MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

 Third-Party Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv1412-BEN-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING REPORT OF 

CRITICAL INCIDENT REVIEW 

BOARD

 

[ECF NO. 176]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties to determine a 

discovery dispute filed on September 1, 2017. (ECF NO. 176). The dispute 

involves Plaintiffs’ Request for Production (Set Two) No. 37 which, among 

other things, calls for Defendant County of San Diego to produce “critical 

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 186 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

incident reports” relating to the death of Ruben Nunez. (ECF No. 176 at 2). 

Defendant County identified a Critical Incident Review Board (“CIRB”) 

report regarding the death of Ruben Nunez but has withheld the report from 

disclosure on the basis of attorney-client privilege. As provided below, 

Defendant County’s objection to disclosure is SUSTAINED.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit consistently has described the attorney-client 

privilege as protecting communications: (a) where legal advice of any kind is 

sought; (b) from a professional legal advisor in his capacity as such; (c) 

relating to that purpose; (d) made in confidence; (e) by the client; (f) that are 

at the client’s insistence permanently protected; (g) from disclosure by 

himself or the legal advisor; (h) unless the protection be waived. United 

States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 

278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002). The party asserting the privilege has the 

burden of establishing all of its elements and, even if established, the 

privilege is strictly construed. Id. at 999-1000.

DISCUSSION

In support of its assertion of attorney-client privilege to protect against 

disclosure of the CIRB report regarding the death of Ruben Nunez, 

Defendant County submitted the Declaration of Robert P. Faigin. (ECF No. 

176-6). Mr. Faigin is the Chief Legal Advisor for the San Diego County 

Sheriff’s Department. (Id. at ¶ 1). Mr. Faigin asserts that the purpose of the 

CIRB is to consult with department legal counsel when an incident occurs 

which may give rise to litigation. (Id. at ¶ 5, also see Exh. A to Faigin 

Declaration, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Procedure § 4.23 (Id. at 

176-6 at 4)). According to Mr. Faigin, the report is kept confidential and is 

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 186 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

maintained in his office. (Id. at ¶ 6). 

Plaintiff challenges the assertion of privilege because Procedure § 4.23 

allows for the CIRB to refer matters to the Internal Affairs section of the 

Sheriff’s Office. (See ECF No. 176-6 at 7-8). In that regard, Plaintiff suggests 

that the CIRB report is akin to an internal investigative report found not to 

be protected in Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 591-92 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 

The Court disagrees. The investigative report at issue in Anderson was 

created by a non-attorney and was not created for the purpose of obtaining 

legal advice. Only after the report was created, was it disseminated to 

general counsel for review. Id. 

Such is not the case here. Mr. Faigin attended the meeting

memorialized in the report and both the procedural manual and Mr. Faigin 

assert that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain legal advice in advance 

of potential litigation. The Court is satisfied that attorney-client privilege 

properly is asserted to protect the CIRB report. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant County’s assertion of attorney-client privilege to protect from 

disclosure the CIRB report regarding the death of Ruben Nunez is 

SUSTAINED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 186 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3