1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSEPH DANIEL NEVIS, No. 2:17-cv-02295-JAM-AC 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 12 RIDEOUT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S HECTOR LOPEZ, M.D.; NATIONAL REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Individually and 14 dba AMTRAK, 15 Defendants. 16 17 In October 2019, Plaintiff Joseph Nevis filed a Motion to 18 Compel Depositions, Increase the Deposition Limit, and Compel the 19 Production of Documents. ECF No. 48. Magistrate Judge Claire 20 held a hearing on the opposed motion at the end of that month. 21 The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and denied it in 22 part. See Minutes for 10/30/2019 Proceedings, ECF No. 62. It 23 issued a written order reflecting that decision. Order, ECF No. 24 63. 25 Plaintiff filed Objections to the October 30 ruling. 26 Objections, ECF No. 72. National Railroad Passenger Corporation 27 and Union Pacific Railroad Company (collectively “the Railroad 28 Defendants”) filed an opposition in response. Opp’n, ECF No. 73. 1 Plaintiff’s objections are more-properly understood as a motion 2 for reconsideration under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule 3 72(a), and Local Rule 303. To prevail on this type of motion, a 4 plaintiff must show the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was “clearly 5 erroneous or contrary to law.” As explained below, Plaintiff did 6 not satisfy this showing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is 7 DENIED. 8 Plaintiff also filed a notice of his request to seal his 9 Objections and related documents. Procedurally, Plaintiff failed 10 to comply with the requirements for filing this request. See 11 E.D. Cal. L. R. 141(b). The Court, however, finds that Chris 12 Edson’s privacy interests should not be undermined by Plaintiff’s 13 counsel’s noncompliance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART 14 Plaintiff’s request to seal documents. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 The parties are well-versed in the factual and procedural 17 underpinnings of this case. The Court will not repeat them here. 18 II. OPINION 19 A. Motion for Reconsideration 20 A district court judge may only reconsider a pretrial 21 matter decided by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(A) “where it has been shown that the [] order is 23 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1)(A). Specifically, the “clearly erroneous” standard 25 applies to a magistrate judge’s “factual determinations and 26 discretionary decisions,” such as those made when adjudicating 27 discovery motions. Computer Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 28 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Maisonville v. 1 F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Osband 2 v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002). A finding is 3 not clearly erroneous unless, upon review of all the evidence, 4 the reviewing body “is left with the definite and firm 5 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & 6 Prods. Of Cal., Inc. v. Const. Laborers Pension Trust for So. 7 Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). 8 Plaintiff contends Magistrate Judge Claire committed clear 9 error by denying his motion to: (1) compel Mark Norris’s 10 deposition, (2) increase the deposition limit; (3) compel the 11 production of documents referenced in Chris Edson’s and Thomas 12 Haskins’s depositions; (4) compel the production of certain 13 accident reports; and (5) compel further production in response 14 to RFP No. 6. Objections at 2-6. The Court disagrees. 15 Plaintiff’s principal complaint is not that the magistrate 16 judged erred as a legal matter, but rather that, as a matter of 17 right and wrong, the Court improperly allowed uncooperative 18 corporate defendants to gain an upper hand. But to the extent 19 that the Railroad Defendants gained any advantage from the 20 October 30 ruling, it was not born out of a magistrate judge’s 21 incorrect view of the law. It flowed from Plaintiff’s insistent 22 unwillingness to use the formal tools of discovery in a timely 23 manner to seek out information relevant to his case. 24 The Court declined to compel Mark Norris’s deposition 25 because Plaintiff did not properly notice the deposition. Order 26 at 3. Plaintiff concedes the notice was untimely served. 27 Objections at 3. Rather than providing a legal basis for why 28 the Court should have nonetheless allowed him to take the 1 deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel continues to levy accusations of 2 bad faith against Defendants—all the while ignoring his failure 3 to comply with the federal discovery rules. Plaintiff failed to 4 show Magistrate Judge Claire’s ruling on this matter was clearly 5 erroneous; his motion is denied. 6 Likewise, the Court declined to compel production of 7 (1) documents related to Edson and Haskin and (2) numerous 8 accident reports. Order at 5-6. This ruling resulted from 9 Plaintiff’s failure to make a formal request for production from 10 Defendants before filing his motion to compel. Id. Plaintiff, 11 again, neither disagrees with this chronology nor identifies a 12 legal basis for why his untimely requests should have been 13 honored. Objections at 6. Plaintiff’s motion for 14 reconsideration of this ruling is denied. 15 The Court declined to increase the deposition limit because 16 Plaintiff failed to make a “particularized showing” of his need 17 for additional depositions. Order at 4. It found Plaintiff’s 18 request to depose multiple first responders was “duplicative and 19 unnecessary,” particularly given “the Marysville Police 20 Department issued a comprehensive report, with photographs that 21 contained all the relevant information that [could] be gleaned 22 through a deposition.” Id. Plaintiff argues that “to 23 determine the testimony of an on-scene officer is cumulative, 24 simply because a report was issued is contrary to applicable 25 case law.” Objections at 5. This uncited proposition falls far 26 short of demonstrating the magistrate judge’s decision was 27 clearly erroneous. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 28 therefore denied. 1 Finally, the Court declined to compel a further response to 2 RFP No. 6. Magistrate Judge Claire issued this decision based 3 upon (1) Defendants’ representation at the October 30 hearing 4 that they had produced four years’ worth of accident records, 5 and (2) her independent finding that four years’ worth of 6 accident records was “reasonable and proportional to the case.” 7 Order at 6. Later that day, Defendants realized they had not in 8 fact produced those documents. See Notice of Errata, ECF No. 9 64. They produced the documents that day and filed a notice of 10 errata identifying and explaining their misrepresentation to the 11 Court. Id. Plaintiff argues this error warrants 12 reconsideration of the Court’s decision. To the contrary, the 13 Court does not find Defendants’ misrepresentation has any 14 bearing on the question of whether the magistrate judge’s 15 finding—that four years’ worth of accident records was 16 reasonable and proportional to the case—was clearly erroneous. 17 Plaintiff does not set forth any authority in support of his 18 argument that limiting the scope of discovery in this way was 19 incorrect as a matter of law. His motion for reconsideration of 20 this issue is denied. 21 B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSEPH DANIEL NEVIS, No. 2:17-cv-02295-JAM-AC 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 12 RIDEOUT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S HECTOR LOPEZ, M.D.; NATIONAL REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Individually and 14 dba AMTRAK, 15 Defendants. 16 17 In October 2019, Plaintiff Joseph Nevis filed a Motion to 18 Compel Depositions, Increase the Deposition Limit, and Compel the 19 Production of Documents. ECF No. 48. Magistrate Judge Claire 20 held a hearing on the opposed motion at the end of that month. 21 The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and denied it in 22 part. See Minutes for 10/30/2019 Proceedings, ECF No. 62. It 23 issued a written order reflecting that decision. Order, ECF No. 24 63. 25 Plaintiff filed Objections to the October 30 ruling. 26 Objections, ECF No. 72. National Railroad Passenger Corporation 27 and Union Pacific Railroad Company (collectively “the Railroad 28 Defendants”) filed an opposition in response. Opp’n, ECF No. 73. 1 Plaintiff’s objections are more-properly understood as a motion 2 for reconsideration under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule 3 72(a), and Local Rule 303. To prevail on this type of motion, a 4 plaintiff must show the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was “clearly 5 erroneous or contrary to law.” As explained below, Plaintiff did 6 not satisfy this showing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is 7 DENIED. 8 Plaintiff also filed a notice of his request to seal his 9 Objections and related documents. Procedurally, Plaintiff failed 10 to comply with the requirements for filing this request. See 11 E.D. Cal. L. R. 141(b). The Court, however, finds that Chris 12 Edson’s privacy interests should not be undermined by Plaintiff’s 13 counsel’s noncompliance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART 14 Plaintiff’s request to seal documents. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 The parties are well-versed in the factual and procedural 17 underpinnings of this case. The Court will not repeat them here. 18 II. OPINION 19 A. Motion for Reconsideration 20 A district court judge may only reconsider a pretrial 21 matter decided by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(A) “where it has been shown that the [] order is 23 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1)(A). Specifically, the “clearly erroneous” standard 25 applies to a magistrate judge’s “factual determinations and 26 discretionary decisions,” such as those made when adjudicating 27 discovery motions. Computer Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 28 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Maisonville v. 1 F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Osband 2 v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002). A finding is 3 not clearly erroneous unless, upon review of all the evidence, 4 the reviewing body “is left with the definite and firm 5 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & 6 Prods. Of Cal., Inc. v. Const. Laborers Pension Trust for So. 7 Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). 8 Plaintiff contends Magistrate Judge Claire committed clear 9 error by denying his motion to: (1) compel Mark Norris’s 10 deposition, (2) increase the deposition limit; (3) compel the 11 production of documents referenced in Chris Edson’s and Thomas 12 Haskins’s depositions; (4) compel the production of certain 13 accident reports; and (5) compel further production in response 14 to RFP No. 6. Objections at 2-6. The Court disagrees. 15 Plaintiff’s principal complaint is not that the magistrate 16 judged erred as a legal matter, but rather that, as a matter of 17 right and wrong, the Court improperly allowed uncooperative 18 corporate defendants to gain an upper hand. But to the extent 19 that the Railroad Defendants gained any advantage from the 20 October 30 ruling, it was not born out of a magistrate judge’s 21 incorrect view of the law. It flowed from Plaintiff’s insistent 22 unwillingness to use the formal tools of discovery in a timely 23 manner to seek out information relevant to his case. 24 The Court declined to compel Mark Norris’s deposition 25 because Plaintiff did not properly notice the deposition. Order 26 at 3. Plaintiff concedes the notice was untimely served. 27 Objections at 3. Rather than providing a legal basis for why 28 the Court should have nonetheless allowed him to take the 1 deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel continues to levy accusations of 2 bad faith against Defendants—all the while ignoring his failure 3 to comply with the federal discovery rules. Plaintiff failed to 4 show Magistrate Judge Claire’s ruling on this matter was clearly 5 erroneous; his motion is denied. 6 Likewise, the Court declined to compel production of 7 (1) documents related to Edson and Haskin and (2) numerous 8 accident reports. Order at 5-6. This ruling resulted from 9 Plaintiff’s failure to make a formal request for production from 10 Defendants before filing his motion to compel. Id. Plaintiff, 11 again, neither disagrees with this chronology nor identifies a 12 legal basis for why his untimely requests should have been 13 honored. Objections at 6. Plaintiff’s motion for 14 reconsideration of this ruling is denied. 15 The Court declined to increase the deposition limit because 16 Plaintiff failed to make a “particularized showing” of his need 17 for additional depositions. Order at 4. It found Plaintiff’s 18 request to depose multiple first responders was “duplicative and 19 unnecessary,” particularly given “the Marysville Police 20 Department issued a comprehensive report, with photographs that 21 contained all the relevant information that [could] be gleaned 22 through a deposition.” Id. Plaintiff argues that “to 23 determine the testimony of an on-scene officer is cumulative, 24 simply because a report was issued is contrary to applicable 25 case law.” Objections at 5. This uncited proposition falls far 26 short of demonstrating the magistrate judge’s decision was 27 clearly erroneous. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 28 therefore denied. 1 Finally, the Court declined to compel a further response to 2 RFP No. 6. Magistrate Judge Claire issued this decision based 3 upon (1) Defendants’ representation at the October 30 hearing 4 that they had produced four years’ worth of accident records, 5 and (2) her independent finding that four years’ worth of 6 accident records was “reasonable and proportional to the case.” 7 Order at 6. Later that day, Defendants realized they had not in 8 fact produced those documents. See Notice of Errata, ECF No. 9 64. They produced the documents that day and filed a notice of 10 errata identifying and explaining their misrepresentation to the 11 Court. Id. Plaintiff argues this error warrants 12 reconsideration of the Court’s decision. To the contrary, the 13 Court does not find Defendants’ misrepresentation has any 14 bearing on the question of whether the magistrate judge’s 15 finding—that four years’ worth of accident records was 16 reasonable and proportional to the case—was clearly erroneous. 17 Plaintiff does not set forth any authority in support of his 18 argument that limiting the scope of discovery in this way was 19 incorrect as a matter of law. His motion for reconsideration of 20 this issue is denied. 21 B. Request to Seal 22 After improperly submitting his first Notice of Request to 23 Seal Documents via email, Plaintiff electronically filed an 24 amended notice. ECF No. 74; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(b). 25 Although the motion Plaintiff requests to seal requested review 26 by a district court judge, he submitted his request with the 27 magistrate judge. In doing so, he failed to comply with Local 28 Rule 141(b)’s requirement that a request to seal documents be “e- 1 | mailed to the appropriate judge.” The clerk’s office notified 2 Plaintiff’s counsel of this error and yet, to date, it remains 3 uncorrected. The Court could deny Plaintiff’s sealing request on 4 this ground. 5 Nevertheless, the Court finds the interest in protecting 6 Chris Edson’s sensitive medical information outweighs the 7 interest in strict enforcement of the Court’s procedural rules 8 here. The Court further finds that “compelling reasons” support 9 | concealing the private information inadvertently disclosed in 10 Plaintiff’s motion. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 11 | LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. 12 Ct. 38 (2016). It does not, however, find that withholding the 13 entire document from public view is necessary to conceal that 14 information. The Court, therefore, seals the documents in docket 15 number 72, but orders Plaintiff to file a redacted version of 16 those documents that better protects Edson’s private information. 17 IIl. ORDER 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 19 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and GRANTS IN PART his 20 request to seal documents. By Wednesday, November 27 at noon, 21 Plaintiff must file a redacted version of the documents in docket 22 number 72 that conceal Edson’s medical information. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 22, 2019 25 Me 26 Benlek, sunk 27 28