Alvarez v. LaRose

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACINTO VICTOR ALVAREZ, JOSEPH Case No.: 20-cv-00782-DMS (AHG) BRODERICK, MARLENE CANO, JOSE 12 CRESPO-VENEGAS, NOE ORDER OVERRULING 13 GONZALEZ-SOTO, VICTOR LARA- DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SOTO, RACQUEL RAMCHARAN, DISCOVERY ORDER 14 GEORGE RIDLEY, MICHAEL JAMIL 15 SMITH, LEOPOLDO SZURGOT, JANE DOE, on behalf of themselves and those 16 similarly situated, 17 Plaintiffs-Petitioners, 18 v. 19 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior 20 Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 21 Defendants-Respondents. 22 23 24 This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ objection to Magistrate Judge 25 Alison Goddard’s September 18, 2020 Amended Order Resolving Joint Motion for 26 Determination of Rule 34 Site Inspection Discovery Dispute, Granting in Part and Denying 27 in Plaintiff Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Rule 34 Site Inspection. Plaintiffs filed an opposition 28 to the objection, and Defendants filed a reply. After reviewing these briefs, the Magistrate 1 || Judge’s Order and the relevant case law, the Court overrules Defendants’ objection. 2 A magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive issue is reviewed by the district 3 || court under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 4 || United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 5 || 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is 6 || evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and 7 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States 8 || Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In contrast, the “contrary to law” standard permits 9 || independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. See e.g., Haines 10 || v. Liggetts Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Medical Imaging Centers of 11 ||America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district 12 court should exercise its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge’s legal 13 ||conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). 14 Defendants’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order does not establish that the 15 || Magistrate Judge’s ruling was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, 16 Court overrules Defendants’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 4, 2021 19 am bby 50 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28