Hipschman v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00903
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN, an Case No.: 22-cv-00903-AJB-BLM individual; ALEXANDER HIPSCHMAN, 12 an individual, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 Plaintiffs, OBJECTION AND EX PARTE MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 v. 15 (Doc. Nos. 140, 142) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Notice of Objection and Motion for Review regarding 20 Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel County 21 to Provide Training Materials, (Doc. No. 140, “Objection”), as well as Plaintiffs’ ex parte 22 motion regarding its Objection, (Doc. No. 142, “Ex Parte Motion”). For the following 23 reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Objection and Ex Parte Motion WITHOUT 24 PREJUDICE. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 On December 11, 2024, Judge Major denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel County 27 to Provide Training Materials. (Doc. No. 137, “Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to 28 Compel” or “Order.”) On December 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Objection to Judge 1 Major’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (Doc. No. 140.) On 2 January 8, 2025, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for reconsideration before Judge Major. 3 (Doc. No. 141, “Motion for Reconsideration.”) The same day, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte 4 motion before this Court, requesting an extension of time to file a Rule 72 objection until 5 fourteen days following Judge Major’s forthcoming ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 6 Reconsideration to preserve their objections to Judge Major’s Order. (Doc. No. 142, “Ex 7 Parte Motion.”) Prior to Plaintiffs filing their Motion for Reconsideration, the Court 8 informed Plaintiffs that such a motion would be duplicative to Plaintiffs’ Objection and 9 requested that Plaintiffs withdraw their Objection prior to filing a motion for 10 reconsideration. (See Doc. No. 142-1.) Plaintiffs did not withdraw their Objection and 11 instead filed their Ex Parte Motion. (Doc. No. 142.) 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 The Court maintains that Plaintiffs’ Objection is redundant to Plaintiffs’ pending 14 Motion for Reconsideration before Judge Major. See Edwards v. Miller, No. 14CV0429 15 JAH(KSC), 2016 WL 3092088, at *24 (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2016), aff'd, 756 F. App’x 680 16 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Petitioner’s [motion for reconsideration] is duplicative of the arguments 17 asserted in his objection to the magistrate judge’s denial of discovery.”) Further, ruling on 18 the merits of Plaintiffs’ Objection would be an inefficient use of judicial resources given 19 that Judge Major may change all or some of her order on reconsideration. See Fox Indus., 20 Inc. v. Gurovich, No. CV 03-5166TCPWDW, 2005 WL 2456896, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 21 2005) (“As a practical matter, it would make no sense for a District Judge to decide an 22 appeal pursuant to Rule 72(a) while the order in question was still under consideration by 23 the Magistrate Judge, who might change all or some of the order on reconsideration.”) 24 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Objection WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 25 Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion is also unnecessary because “Plaintiff[s]’ filing of a 26 motion for reconsideration tolled the time for filing a formal objection to the Discovery 27 Order.” Calendar Rsch. LLC v. StubHub, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-04062-SVW-SS, 2019 WL 28 4138660, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2019). If Plaintiffs seek to file a formal objection to 1 |}any forthcoming order from Magistrate Judge Major regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for 2 Reconsideration or Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel County to Provide Training Materials, 3 || Plaintiffs may file specific written objections within 14 days of Magistrate Judge Major’s 4 ||order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte 5 Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 6 Ht. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Objection and Ex Parte 8 ||Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may file any objections within 14 days of 9 || Magistrate Judge Major’s order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. 10 11 Dated: January 22, 2025 © ¢ 12 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 An RANKAN □□□□□□□□□□□□□