Scripps Health v. Nautilus Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCRIPPS HEALTH, Case No.: 21-cv-01634-AJB-WVG Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OVERRULING v. DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO 13 MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JANUARY NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY; 14 15, 2023 ORDER and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 65) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Nautilus Insurance Company’s (“Nautilus”) 18 objection to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s order denying in part without prejudice 19 and denying in part with prejudice the joint motion to take depositions of third-party 20 witnesses after the fact discovery cut-off. (Doc. No. 65.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 21 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and 22 without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Nautilus’ 23 objection. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On January 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued an order (“Order”) 26 denying in part without prejudice and denying in part with prejudice the joint motion to 27 take depositions of six third-party witnesses after the January 18, 2023 Fact Discovery Cut- 28 Off deadline. (Doc. No. 59.) 1 The Order followed the Parties’ assertions that good cause exists to extend the fact 2 discovery deadline because the Parties were unable to depose Mary Gallagher, Marcia 3 Wylie, Gerard Varela, Chris Hubbard, Alliant Insurance Services Inc.’s Person Most 4 Knowledgeable, and Clinton Heckethorn by the January 18, 2023 deadline due to 5 unavailability of the witnesses, failure to respond to subpoena, or inability of Nautilus to 6 serve third-party witnesses. (Id. at 3.) The instant objection follows. (Doc. No. 65.) 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD1 8 A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within 9 fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge’s 10 order will be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; 28 U.S.C. 11 § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to factual findings and 12 discretionary decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters. 13 F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000); Joiner v. 14 Hercules, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 695, 697 (S.D. Ga. 1996) (reviewing magistrate judge’s order 15 addressing attorney-client issues in discovery for clear error). Review under this standard 16 is “significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 17 committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. of S. 18 Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 “Non-dispositive matters include ‘evidentiary rulings, pretrial discovery matters, 20 and the imposition of sanctions for discovery abuses.’” Estakhrian v. Obenstine, No. CV 21 11-03480 GAC(CWx), 2012 WL 12884889, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (quoting 22 Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503, 518 (D. N.J. 2008)); see also Hoar v. Sara Lee 23 Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Matters concerning discovery generally are 24 considered ‘nondispositive’ of the litigation”); F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 25 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to factual 26

27 1 Nautilus incorrectly requests the Court to review the Magistrate Judge’s order under de novo review, 28 1 findings and discretionary decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial 2 discovery matters[.]”). There is no doubt that the dispute currently before the Court 3 involves a pretrial-discovery matter because it is based on discovery deadline disputes. See 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 Nautilus moves to set aside the Magistrate Judge’s Order as to Mary Gallagher, 7 Marcia Wylie, and Clinton Heckethorn on the grounds it is clearly erroneous and contrary 8 to law, arguing it will be prejudiced if it is unable to take the deposition of these three 9 witnesses, and that good cause exists for the Parties’ delay. (Doc. No. 65 at 6–10.) 10 Because the challenge to the magistrate judge’s finding involves a discretionary 11 decision made in connection with a non-dispositive pretrial discovery matter, the clearly- 12 erroneous standard applies. See Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. at 378. Upon 13 reviewing the relevant documents—including Nautilus’ motion, Plaintiff’s opposition, 14 (Doc. No. 68), and the Magistrate Judge’s Order—and taking into account that the clearly- 15 erroneous standard is “significantly deferential,” the Court cannot reach a “definite and 16 firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., 17 508 U.S. at 623. 18 There is nothing before the Court meeting the clearly-erroneous standard that 19 demonstrates the Magistrate Judge did not thoroughly consider Nautilus’ concerns that 20 were presented to him. The Court does not find Nautilus has made a good cause showing 21 for a continuance to take depositions of third-party witnesses after the fact discovery cut- 22 off, or that the Magistrate Judge’s Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law under 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Cour. OVERRULES Nautilus’ objection to Magistrate 3 Judge William V. Gallo’s January 15, 2023 Order. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 8, 2023 7 9 cetag li. United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28