Sprawling class-action lawsuit over county jails’ safety nears trial, as judge refuses to dismiss claims

A federal judge has denied the county’s request to dismiss key parts of a sweeping class-action lawsuit filed by attorneys representing people incarcerated in San Diego County jails.

The decision means the long-running case challenging the treatment of people in sheriff’s custody is closer to being set for trial.

“Based on the foregoing, the court denies defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety,” San Diego federal court Judge Anthony J. Battaglia wrote in his 72-page decision issued late Monday.

In related rulings, Judge Battaglia rejected the plaintiffs’ request to exclude testimony from experts hired by the county and ordered the county to pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers just over $2 million in attorneys’ fees and legal costs.

The Sheriff’s Office and San Diego County declined to comment on the rulings, citing the ongoing litigation. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they are readying their case for trial.

“We are working diligently to prepare for trial and are looking forward to the court setting a trial date as soon as possible,” said Gay Grunfeld, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Motions for summary judgment are generally filed in the last weeks before a trial. They essentially argue that the plaintiff or defense has not turned up enough evidence to proceed to trial.

In recent filings, attorneys for the county argued that conditions have improved since a scathing 2022 state audit found that San Diego jails had the highest mortality rate among California’s large jail systems.

“The undisputed facts demonstrate that the SDSO (San Diego Sheriff’s Office) does not have any current ‘systemic policies and practices’ which are causing (incarcerated persons) to suffer a deprivation of their constitutional rights,” their wrote in a recent brief.

The plaintiffs countered that major problems persist, putting vulnerable people in custody at risk of harm or even death.

The county sought to dismiss the lawsuit’s claims that the sheriff provides inadequate medical, mental health and dental care to people in jail, fails to ensure they are safe and secure, fails to properly clean and sanitize their cells and wrongly denies them access to lawyers.

Battaglia said the plaintiffs have produced enough evidence to allow the disputed facts to proceed to trial.

He also denied a request from the plaintiffs to strike testimony from experts hired by the county. The plaintiffs had argued that the county’s experts used unreliable methodology and insufficient evidence to conclude that San Diego jails provided adequate care.

The judge acknowledged the plaintiffs’ concerns but ruled that they could be addressed during cross-examination.

Battaglia did agree to the plaintiffs’ request to exclude opinions from several experts as to whether jail staff acted with “deliberate indifference” — that is, whether they knowingly ignored a serious risk to health or safety.

“The Court finds (the experts’) opinions are impermissible to the extent they purport to establish that Defendants did not act with ‘deliberate indifference’ or that Defendants meet constitutional requirements,” he wrote.

Experts cannot offer legal conclusions, Battaglia wrote. Those decisions are for the court to make.

The flurry of rulings means the federal court is more likely to move forward with scheduling a trial date for a case that was first filed in 2020 by Darryl Dunsmore, who was at the time incarcerated in San Diego’s Central Jail.

Dunsmore suffers from a form of early onset arthritis and uses a wheelchair to move around and a modified spoon to eat. Deputies confiscated both items.

When Dunsmore became distraught, he was stripped of his clothing and placed in an isolation cell where he was unable to get to the toilet and was forced to urinate and defecate on the cell floor. Without his modified spoon, his only option was to eat with his hands.

Dunsmore was representing himself when he argued in a federal lawsuit that the Sheriff’s Office was not providing appropriate meals, treatment, equipment and other services.

Three civil-rights law firms joined the case in 2022, breathing new life into it, and it subsequently broadened into a class-action lawsuit all previous, current and future jail detainees.

Last year, the lawyers reached a settlement with San Diego County over the jail’s handling of people with disabilities. The deal was approved by Battaglia just two weeks ago.

Under that agreement, the Sheriff’s Office pledged to improve conditions for people in custody who have limited mobility, hearing impairments and other disabilities identified under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

The deal calls for the Sheriff’s Office to retrofit showers, toilets and beds inside county jails to meet accessibility standards. The sheriff also agreed to ensure people in jail have access to wheelchairs, CPAP devices and other equipment.

“Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez is grateful for the work that went into this mutually agreed upon settlement,” the Sheriff’s Office said in a news release last December, when the deal was first reached.

“While this settlement agreement is not a consent decree, the Sheriff’s Office is committed to compliance with all the terms,” it added.

On Monday, Battaglia also ruled that the county must pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees in that settled portion of the lawsuit, adding millions of dollars to the continuing public expense of the litigation.

“Plaintiffs assert, and defendants do not dispute, that pursuant to the terms of the ADA Settlement … plaintiffs are the prevailing party and entitled to an interim award of attorneys’ fees and costs,” the judge wrote.

The law firms representing the plaintiffs — Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld of San Francisco, the Law Office of Aaron J. Fischer of Berkeley and the global firm DLA Piper LLP — originally requested attorney fees and expenses of almost $3.2 million.

But the judge rejected several of the specific bills contested by San Diego County, including more than $700 for a car service hired by Grunfeld for several early morning rides to San Francisco International Airport.

Grunfeld argued that the car service was more reliable for her 6 a.m. flights from San Francisco to San Diego, but the judge disagreed.

“More affordable ride sharing or taxi services can be reserved ahead of departure,” he wrote. “In its discretion, the court reduced the reimbursement of costs for the Pacific Town Cars by half.”

In all, the court awarded Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld just over $1.3 million. Fischer was granted almost $171,000 in fees, and DLA Piper was awarded just under $82,000.

The court also granted $427,000 for other expenses, with most of the money going to the plaintiffs’ ADA experts.

Heavily redacted records obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune through a public records request show that as of mid-May, the county had paid more than $3 million to outside legal counsel to defend the lawsuit.

It is not yet clear when a trial will be scheduled.