Doe v. County of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01438
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA No. 2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD DOE, a fictitious name, and “I.D.,” a 11 fictitious name, by and through her next friend, MARIA DOE, 12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 15 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; DARRYL RODERICK; 16 JAGDEEP SINGH, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Sushma 17 Giri; V & N ASSOCIATES, LLC; and ALIDA ESTRADA, 18 Defendants. 19 20 By way of the present action, Plaintiffs seek to recover from various Defendants, 21 including the County of Sacramento (“County”), for injuries sustained when she and her 22 children were purportedly coerced to leave their apartment by a Sheriff’s Deputy without 23 legal process or an interpreter. Presently before the Court is the County’s Motion for 24 Reconsideration (ECF No. 74) of the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion 25 to Compel (ECF No. 72) requiring the County to produce over 50,000 CAD reports or to 26 allow Plaintiffs’ expert to access the system to conduct their own search. For the 27 following reasons, that Motion is DENIED.1

28 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 1 In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply 2 the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 3 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's 5 decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 6 Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 7 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If the Court 8 believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after 9 considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that “it 10 would have weighed the evidence differently.” Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal 11 Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and 12 citations omitted). 13 After reviewing the entire file, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order 14 was not clearly erroneous. The Magistrate Jude had already determined in a previous 15 ruling that the evidence Plaintiffs are seeking, CAD reports, is relevant. That ruling 16 became final months before the County filed the instant motion and it is not subject to 17 reconsideration. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(b). Regardless, the Court agrees that 18 those records are indeed relevant, not just because they exist, but because of their 19 content. 20 Accordingly, the County resorts to arguing that the production ordered is not 21 reasonably proportional to the needs of the case and that it would be overly 22 burdensome. But all of that was considered by the Magistrate Judge. While the Court 23 understands that the parties are trying to manage a massive amount of electronic 24 information, Plaintiffs have specifically offered to have their own expert work toward 25 extracting the necessary data, and the County must have access to third parties capable 26 of handling this as well. Finally, it is counterintuitive to the Court that the County should 27 submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). 28 1 || be able to rely on its own system shortcomings (e.g., unable to produce electronic data) 2 || to avoid its discovery obligations, especially in a time when the production of ESI is 3 || routine. In any event, the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in rejecting the County's 4 | arguments as to proportionality and burden. The County’s Motion (ECF No. 74) is thus 5 | DENIED. 6 IT |S SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: April 12, 2024 8 □ late JES. Whip AX XC - ° SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28