UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

A.C., a minor; A.E.1, a minor; No. 19-55895 A.E.2, a minor, by and through Samuel H. Park, their Guardian ad D.C. No. litem, 3:18-cv-02227- Plaintiffs-Appellants, AJB-AGS

v. OPINION ERICA R. CORTEZ, an individual; KATE DWYRE JONES, an individual; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; DOES, 1 through 30 inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California Anthony K. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 5, 2021 * Pasadena, California

Filed May 13, 2022

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 A.C. V. CORTEZ

Before: Susan P. Graber and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges, and Richard Seeborg, ** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Seeborg

SUMMARY ***

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that attorneys for the County of San Diego, in defending the County against plaintiffs’ earlier lawsuit, reviewed plaintiffs’ juvenile case files without first obtaining a court order, in violation of plaintiffs’ privacy rights.

In a previously issued memorandum disposition, the panel held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for the reasons stated in Nunes v. Arata, Swingle, Van Egmond & Goodwin (PLC), 983 F.3d 1108, 1113–14 (9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). The panel’s previous disposition did not address plaintiffs’ claim brought pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and after plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, rehearing, and rehearing en banc, the panel invited supplemental briefing on the Monell claim.

** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. A.C. V. CORTEZ 3

The panel held that, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012) does not stand for the proposition that a right to privacy necessarily attaches to the type of records at issue here. Thus, Gonzalez did not recognize a per se constitutional right in juvenile records that is always violated by third-party access. Further, even if plaintiffs were entitled to informational privacy, the balancing test recognized in Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 539 (9th Cir. 2010), showed the County’s interest in defending this litigation outweighed plaintiffs’ asserted privacy interest. Even assuming that the social workers’ records comprised sensitive medical and psychological records, there was no constitutional violation because the County’s need to access the records was high. Plaintiffs initiated that need, and the professional obligations that lawyers owe their clients minimized the risk of misuse, harassment, or embarrassment. Thus, the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ Monell claim.

COUNSEL Shawn A. McMillan, Stephen D. Daner, and Adrian M. Paris, Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan A.P.C., San Diego, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel; Jeffrey Michalowski and John P. Cooley, Senior Deputies; Office of County Counsel