Amy v. Curtis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 “AMY,” et al., Case No. 19-cv-02184-PJH 8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 10 RANDALL STEVEN CURTIS, NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 163 12

13 14 Before the court is defendant’s motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order 15 of magistrate judge. Dkt. 163. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered 16 their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court 17 hereby rules as follows. 18 I. Background 19 Fact discovery in this case closed on October 29, 2020. Dkt. 87. Defendant 20 served discovery requests on that same day, seeking an interrogatory response and 21 production of documents from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not serve responses to these 22 discovery requests. 23 The parties filed a joint discovery letter on February 10, 2021. Dkt. 160. Through 24 the discovery letter, defendant sought to compel responses to the requests of October 25 29, 2020: communications between attorney James Marsh and members of Congress 26 related to amending Title 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2018. Plaintiffs’ portion of the joint letter 27 resisted defendant’s discovery requests. 1 discovery on February 12, 2021. Dkt. 161. Defendant filed the present motion for relief 2 from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge on February 18, 2021. Dkt. 163. 3 Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendant’s motion on March 4, 2021. Dkt. 167. 4 II. Legal Standard 5 A district court may modify or set aside an order of a magistrate judge on a non- 6 dispositive matter only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 7 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Under this “deferential” standard, the district court 8 may not “substitute its judgment” for that of the magistrate judge. United States v. 9 Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2001); Grimes v. City & Cty. of San 10 Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of fact may be set aside as 11 clearly erroneous only if the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 12 been committed.” Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). However, the 13 “magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo to determine whether they are 14 contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 15 (citations omitted). 16 III. Analysis 17 Defendant alleges that the 2018 amendments to Section 2255 amount to a “bill of 18 attainder” against him, particularly arguing that James Marsh, counsel for some of the 19 plaintiffs in separate matters, successfully lobbied Congress for the amendment of 20 statutory minimum damages to liquidated damages after learning of defendant’s criminal 21 plea. Defendant argues that the magistrate judge “erred by (1) finding that no plaintiffs 22 possessed documents responsive to defendant’s requests for production; (2) finding that 23 James Marsh is not the agent and representative of plaintiffs Amy, Jenny, Jessica, Erika, 24 and Tori with respect to these requests; (3) refusing to apply the waiver of objections 25 based on plaintiffs’ failure to respond timely to the discovery requests; (4) holding that 26 defendant’s discovery requests do not seek relevant documents; and (5) finding facts not 27 supported by the briefing and for not holding a hearing, which aided the magistrate judge 1 Plaintiffs counter by arguing that (1) defendant’s discovery requests were untimely 2 and unenforceable; (2) defendant lacks good cause to compel discovery because the 3 correspondence he seeks is not relevant to the case; (3) requests for correspondence 4 with elected representatives violate the First Amendment rights of plaintiffs; and (4) 5 contrary to defendant’s argument, there is no right to a hearing on a discovery dispute. 6 This court does not find it necessary to reach the issue considered by the 7 magistrate judge—whether plaintiffs, through their agent, possessed documents 8 responsive to defendant’s requests for production. Dkt. 161. Defendant’s objections to 9 the order of the magistrate judge are overruled for a few distinct reasons. First, 10 defendant’s October 29, 2020, discovery requests were untimely under the local rules. 11 Civil L.R. 37-3 (“Discovery requests that call for responses or depositions after the 12 applicable discovery cutoff are not enforceable, except by order of the Court for good 13 cause shown”). Second, defendant’s present effort to compel discovery responses is 14 also untimely. Civil L.R. 37-3 (“Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and 15 expert discovery, no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days 16 after the fact discovery cut-off”). Third and most significantly, defendant’s effort to 17 compel discovery seeks information that is not relevant to a claim or defense in this case. 18 As discussed more thoroughly in the court’s order denying defendant’s motion for 19 judgment on the pleadings, defendant’s assertion that the 2018 amendments to Section 20 2255 constitute a bill of attainder against him is simply not colorable. Defendant is not 21 entitled to the discovery he seeks to compel. 22 IV. Conclusion 23 For these reasons, defendant’s motion for relief from nondispositive order of 24 magistrate judge is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 8, 2021 27 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton