Regal v. County of Santa Clara

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 27, 2024
• Docket: 5:22-cv-04321
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 DEVIN REGAL, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04321-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF 99]

12 13 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order issued by 14 Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. See Pls.’ Mot. for Relief, ECF 99. This Court finds the 15 motion suitable for decision without a response or a hearing. See Civ. L.R. 72-2(d) (When a party 16 seeks relief from the nondispositive order of a magistrate judge, “no response to the motion is 17 necessary and no hearing will be conducted” unless otherwise ordered by the district judge.). 18 Plaintiffs seek review of Judge Cousins’ denial of their request to depose a designee of 19 Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”) on certain topics. The parties presented the dispute 20 regarding deposition topics to Judge Cousins in a joint letter brief filed September 19, 2024, and 21 Judge Cousins issued his ruling the same day. See Joint Discovery Letter Brief, ECF 95; Order 22 Denying Discovery Letter Brief, ECF 96. Judge Cousins ruled that “the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 23 topics requested by Plaintiffs in the Letter Brief are unreasonably duplicative of Plaintiffs’ First 24 30(b)(6) Notice and are not proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26(b)(1),” and that 25 “the burden of this proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, especially considering that fact 26 discovery closes tomorrow.” Order Denying Discovery Letter Brief, ECF 96. Plaintiffs ask this 27 Court to reverse Judge Cousins’ ruling and allow them to depose Defendant County’s designee on 1 This Court may modify Judge Cousins’ discovery order only if it “is clearly erroneous or is 2 || contrary to law” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 3 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“A magistrate judge’s discovery order may be modified or set aside if it is 4 ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’”). Under the clear error standard, “‘a reviewing court must 5 ask whether, on the entire evidence, it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 6 || has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (discussing clear error 7 || review generally) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. 8 || City of Portland, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1167 (D. Or. 2009), aff'd, 404 F. App’x 249 (9th Cir. 9 || 2010) (applying Easley to review of magistrate judge’s nondispositive order under Rule 72(a)). 10 || “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or 11 rules of procedure.” Perez v. City of Fresno, 519 F. Supp. 3d 718, 722 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (quotation 12 || marks and citation omitted). When applying these principles, the district court “may not simply 13 substitute its judgment” for that of the magistrate judge. Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 14 || 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 15 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that relief is warranted under this standard. As an initial a 16 || matter, this Court notes that Plaintiffs’ brief neither cites the relevant legal standard nor argues 3 17 expressly that Judge Cousins’ order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Based on the 18 arguments presented in the brief, the Court understands Plaintiffs to be raising a clear error 19 || challenge to Judge Cousins’ factual determinations regarding the duplicative nature of the 20 || deposition topics and relative burdens and benefits of the proposed discovery. This Court finds 21 that Judge Cousins’ factual determinations are not clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs do not appear to 22 assert that Judge Cousins failed to apply, or misapplied, the relevant law, and this Court finds that 23 || he did not. 24 Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from Judge Cousins’ nondispositive pretrial order is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: September 27, 2024 fi ] WW LWA TH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge