Morton v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MARILYN MORTON, et al., Case No. 21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S RULE 72 OBJECTION 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 149] 16 17 18 19 On September 20, 2023, Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner issued a Discovery 20 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents. See Doc. 21 No. 144. Defendant County of San Diego (the “County”) now objects to portions of the 22 Discovery Order. See Doc. No. 149. Plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition to the 23 objection, to which the County replied. See Doc. Nos. 156, 163. For the reasons set forth 24 below, the Court OVERRULES the County’s objection. 25 Pursuant to Rule 72(a), a party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a 26 magistrate judge within fourteen days of service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 27 District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A 28 district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion 1 only “where it has been shown that the magistrate [judge]’s order is clearly erroneous or 2 contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City 3 and Cnty. Of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). “Under this standard of 4 review, a magistrate [judge]’s order is ‘clearly erroneous’ if, after considering all of the 5 evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 6 been committed, and the order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to apply or misapplies 7 relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Yent v. Baca, No. CV-01-10672 8 PA(VBKX), 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2002). 9 The threshold of the “clearly erroneous” test is high and significantly deferential. 10 “The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding 11 court.” Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there 12 is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the 13 definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. 14 Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Mathews v. Chevron Corp., 362 F.3d 1172, 1180 15 (9th Cir. 2004). In comparison, a magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law if the judge 16 applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable 17 standard. See Hunt v. Nat’l Broad Co., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that 18 such failures constitute abuse of discretion.) 19 Having conducted an in camera review of the subject documents and upon review 20 of the entire record, including Judge Leshner’s Discovery Order, the parties’ briefs, and 21 the Court’s prior Rule 72 objection Order, see Doc. No. 131, the Court is not persuaded 22 that Judge Leshner’s Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Leshner 23 found that the County failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the nineteen (19) 24 CIRB reports are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the 25 official information privilege, the deliberate process privilege, or the law enforcement 26 investigatory privilege. He also concluded that the CIRB reports are relevant and 27 proportional to the needs of this case. As to the three Sheriff’s Department’s Internal 28 Affairs reports, Judge Leshner similarly found that the County failed to meet its burden | showing they are protected by the official information privilege and concluded these 2 ||reports are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. On this record, the Court 3 not left with a definite or firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. 4 || Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objection to Judge Leshner’s 5 || September 20, 2023 Discovery Order. 7 ||Dated: November 8, 2023 g Miku. M={ hiltr 9 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28