Bartlett v. BP West Coast Products LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERSIAN GULF INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-DMS-AGS

Plaintiff, Lead Case No. 3:18-cv-01374-DMS- AGS (consolidated with Case No. v. 3:18-cv-01377-DMS-AGS)

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, et al., ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO Defendants. JULY 17, 2020 ORDER ON RICHARD BARTLETT, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REGARDING DEFENDANT Plaintiffs, PHILLIPS 66’S REQUEST TO CLAW BACK DOCUMENT v.

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, et al., Defendants. This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections to Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler’s July 17, 2020 Order on Plaintiffs’ motion regarding Defendant Phillips 66’s request to claw back a document on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Phillips 66 filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ objections, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. After thoroughly reviewing these briefs, the Magistrate Judge’s Order and the relevant case law, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections. A magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive issue is reviewed by the district court under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record \is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In contrast, the “contrary to law” standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. See e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district court should exercise its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge’s legal conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, /686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order do not establish that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. Dated: September 18, 2020 ns ym. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge