Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170-4/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 

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 

. 

2015 JUH -I PH!: 53 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE ESTATE OF BERNARD 

VICTORlANNE by and through its 

successor-in-interest ZELDA 

CASE NO. 14cv2170-WQHBLM 

VICTORlANNE, BERNARD ORDER 

VICTORlANNE II, and ZELDA 

VICTORlANNE, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 

WILLIAM GORE, and DOEs 1 - 50, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Amend the 

Complaint (ECF No. 72), the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Second Amended 

Complaint Under Seal (ECF No. 73), Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike Parts 

ofthe FAC pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) (ECF No. 

42), and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike 

Parts ofthe F AC in Abeyance (ECF No. 50). 

I. Background ... 

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs, The Estate ofBernard Victorianne by and 

through its successor-in-interest Zelda Victorianne, Bernard Victorianne II, and Zelda 

Victorianne initiated this action by filing the Complaint against Defendants County of 

San Diego and William Gore. (ECF No.1). Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts the following 

claims for relief: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 42 U.S.C. section 

- 1 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 7
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 

1983; (2) wrongful death, 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (3) right of association, 42 U.S.C. 

section 1983; (4) failure to properly train, 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (5) failure to 

properly supervise and discipline, 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (6) failure to properly 

investigate, 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and (7) Monell municipal liability civil rights 

action, 42 U.S.C. section 1983. (ECF No.1). 

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). 

(ECF No. 37). Plaintiffs' FAC asserts three additional claims: (1) wrongful death 

California Code ofCivil Procedure 377.60 etseq.; (2) negligence; and (3) violation of 

California Civil Rights section 52.1. 

On February 23, 2015, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss and Strike Parts 

ofthe FAC pursuanttoFederal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f). (ECFNo. 

- 42). On March 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition of Defendants' 

motion. (ECF No. 53). On March 16,2015, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 55). 

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Ex Parte Motion to Hold Defendants' 

Motion to Dismiss and Strike Parts ofthe FAC in Abeyance. (ECF No. 50). On March 

27,2015, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. (ECF No. 

61). 

On April 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Ex Parte Motion to Amend the 

Scheduling Order requesting a deadline ofMay 11,2015 to file a motion for leave to 

file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 68). On May 6, 2015, Defendants filed 

an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 70). On May 8, 2015, United States Magistrate 

Judge Barbara L. Major issued an order stating that "[hJere, the Court finds good cause 

to GRANT Plaintiffs' motion. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the ... 

pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on May 11,2015. All remaining 

dates and deadlines set forth in the Court's December 17, 2014 Case Management 

Conference Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings [ECF No. 31] 

are hereby VACATED pending a ruling on the pending motion to dismiss [ECF No. 

42] and soon-to-be-file motion to amend the pleadings." (ECF No. 71 at 2-3). 

-2- 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 7
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 

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Complaint 

along with an attached proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 72). On the 

same day, Plaintiffs filed the Ex Parte Application to File Second Amended Complaint 

Under Seal. (ECF No. 73). On May 20,2015, Defendants filed a response opposing 

Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Complaint. On May 22,2015, Defendants 

filed a Conditional Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to File Second 

Amended Complaint Under Seal. (ECF No. 79). On May 22, 2015, Plaintiffs' filed 

a reply in support ofthe Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 80). 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 72) 

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' motion causes confusion and prejudice. 

. Defendants contend that the "piecemeal approach Plaintiffs are using in this matter 

with multiple complaint submissions is potentially prejudicial to all defendants, current 

and prospective, who have the right to challenge a complaint directed against them, to 

formulate their respective defenses and to fully participate in discovery that all parties 

may conduct." (ECF No. 77 at 4). 

Plaintiffs contend that there is no prejudice and no delay that can result from the 

filing of a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs contend that the denial ofthe filing 

of the amended complaint would result in substantial harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 

contend that because Defendants withheld critical information regarding Bernard's 

death, Plaintiffs did not become aware of the exact nature of the medical staff's 

misconduct until they received discovery. 

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 15 provides: "A party may amend its pleading 

once as a matter ofcourse .... " Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). "In all other cases, a party may 

amend its pleading only with the opposing party's consent or the courts leave." Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend 

"be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be 

applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 

-3- 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 7
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 

. 

1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an 

amendment, a court considers whether there is "undue delay," "bad faith," "undue 

prejudice to the opposing party," or "futility ofamendment. " Fomanv. Davis, 371 U.S. 

178, 182 (1962). "Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight .... [I]t is the 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." 

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citation omitted). "The party opposing 

amendment bears the burden ofshowing prejudice." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 

833 F.2d 183,187 (9th Cir. 1987). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of 

the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15( a) in favor of 

granting leave to amend." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

After review ofthe Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Complaint and the filings of 

the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong 

showing ofthe Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor 

ofgranting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will 

defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed second amended 

complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See N etbula v. Dis tinct Corp., 212 

F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ("Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of 

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is 

granted and the amended pleading is filed."). The Ex Parte Motion to Amend the 

Complaint is granted. 

B. Ex Parte Application to File Second Amended Complaint Under Seal 

(ECF No. 73) 

Plaintiffs move the court for an order permitting Plaintiffs to file portions ofthe 

- proposed second amended complaint under seal. Plaintiffs assert that they have 

redacted portions of the second amended complaint that address any discipline of 

County officials. Plaintiffs explain that they "do not believe that the redacted portions 

of the second amended complaint are subject to the protective order currently in 

place...," but "those are typically areas that are designated privileged and confidential." 

-4- 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 7
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 

(ECF No. 73 at 2). Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs filing portions ofthe proposed 

second amended complaint under seal. 

"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents. '" Kamakana v. City 

and County ofHonolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,597 & n.7 (1978)). In the Ninth Circuit, there 

is "a strong presumption in favor ofaccess to court records." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1178-79. The right ofaccess to judicial records is a common law right. See Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1135. "A narrow range ofdocuments is not subject to the right ofpublic access 

at all because the records have 'traditionally been kept secret for important policy 

reasons.'" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 

873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989)). The Ninth Circuit has identified two categories 

of documents that fall into this category: grand jury transcripts and warrant materials 

in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation. Id. 

"A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden ofovercoming 

this strong presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party 

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings ... that 

outweigh the general history ofaccess and the public policies favoring disclosure, such 

as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1178-79 (citations and quotation marks omitted). "The factors relevant to a 

determination of whether the strong presumption of access is overcome include the 

'public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the .. material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous 

purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.'" Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 

1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotingEEOCv. Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 

1990)); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("In general, 'compelling reasons' 

sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court 

- 5 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 7
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 

. 

records exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper 

purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets."). "[T]he court must 

'conscientiously balance [ ] the competing interests' ofthe public and the party who 

seeks to keep certain judicial records secret." Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F .3d at 1135). 

"After considering these interests, ifthe court decides to seal certain judicial records, 

it must 'base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its 

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.'" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 

(quoting Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434). 

The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be 

overcome "only by an overriding right or interest 'based on findings that closure is 

essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. '" 

Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Us. Dist. Court, 920 F .2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)). 

In Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Second Amended Complaint Under 

Seal, Plaintiffs specifically state that "Plaintiffs do not believe that the redacted 

portions ofthe second amended complaint are subject to the protective order currently 

in place .... " (ECF No. 73 at 2). Plaintiffs further state that "[w]hile Plaintiffs do not 

believe the standard has been met, as a precaution, Plaintiffs respectfully move this 

Court for an order permitting Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint under 

seal." Id at 3. The Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of 

overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access to court records by meeting the 

compelling reasons standard. Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Second Amended 

Complaint Under Seal is denied. 

III 

- 6 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 6 of 7
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 

III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Amend the 

Complaint (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File 

Second Amended Complaint Under Seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs' shall file the attached 

proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than ten (10) days from the date this 

order is issued with the caption "Second Amended Complaint." 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike 

Parts ofthe FAC pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b )(6) and 12(f) (ECF 

No. 42) and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and 

Strike Parts ofthe FAC in Abeyance (ECF No. 50) are DENIED as moot. 

: 

DATED: «§;/{ __ 

WILLIAM 

~~ 

O. HAYES 

United Statesl:)istrict Judge 

- 7 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 81 Filed 06/01/15 Page 7 of 7