Mollica v. County of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Lia D. Mollica, No. 2:19-cv-02017-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. County of Sacramento, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Lia D. Mollica alleges she sustained severe injuries while incarcerated in the 18 | Sacramento County Main Jail but was wrongfully denied medical treatment. See generally Am. 19 | Compl., ECF No. 20. The Magistrate Judge granted her motion to compel responses to several 20 | written discovery requests, and the County moves for reconsideration. See MJ Order, ECF 21 | No. 51. The matter is fully briefed and was submitted without a hearing. See generally Mot. 22 | Recons., ECF No. 54; Opp’n, ECF No. 55. As explained in this order, the motion to reconsider 1s 23 | denied. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits parties to object to a magistrate judge’s 25 | orders on any nondispositive pretrial matter. A district court must consider timely objections and 26 | “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. 27 | Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). These two standards— 28 | “clearly erroneous” and “contrary to law”—apply to different aspects of the magistrate judge’s 1 order. The “contrary to law” standard applies to legal determinations. See, e.g., Computer Econ., 2 Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Haines v. Liggett 3 Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)). Legal questions are considered de novo. See id. 4 The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual determinations and 5 discretionary decisions. See id. (citing Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 6 1990)). A decision is “clearly erroneous” if the district court “is left with the definite and firm 7 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr. Laborers 8 Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 9 364, 395 (1948)). The latter is a “significantly differential” standard of review. Id. at 623. 10 The County requests reconsideration on three points: 11 1. Interrogatory No. 8. In this interrogatory, Mollica asked the County to identify “each 12 complaint/grievance of jail staff’s alleged failure to provide medical care . . . from May 4, 2018 to 13 May 4, 2020.” MJ Order at 2 (alteration in original). The Magistrate Judge found this request 14 was relevant, not vague, and not unduly burdensome. Id. at 2–4. The County argues this decision 15 was “manifestly unjust” because the interrogatory requests personal and private information, 16 because it does not protect the rights of third parties, and because it is unduly burdensome. See 17 Mot. Recons. at 5–6. The magistrate judge did not clearly err. First, motions to redact or file 18 under seal and confidentiality designations are the proper tools to protect the private and sensitive 19 personal information that might be disclosed by responses to this interrogatory. Second, as 20 Mollica argues without objection, the County waived or forfeited this argument in proceedings 21 before the Magistrate Judge. See Opp’n at 4. Third, the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err by 22 concluding the County will not suffer an undue burden. The County has not substantiated its 23 argument that the necessary searches will be burdensome, for example by explaining how many 24 records it must review, how long that review will take and cost, and such. It has only asserted the 25 burden would be undue. 26 2. Requests for Production Nos. 48–57. The Magistrate Judge considered some of these 27 requests separately, but the County relies on the same arguments in its current motion. See MJ 28 Order at 4–5. Mollica asked the County to produce documents related to several lawsuits about 1 other alleged failures to provide medical care. See id. The Magistrate Judge found these requests 2 were relevant to Mollica’s Monell claim but limited the County’s production obligation to the 3 investigations it conducted while Mollica was incarcerated. See id. The County argues the 4 lawsuits and investigations are irrelevant because they do not relate to “a failure to provide timely 5 outpatient orthopedic surgery for a fractured heal [sic]” and because those lawsuits might not 6 have resulted in any “finding of unconstitutional conduct.” Mot. Recons. at 7. The Magistrate 7 Judge did not clearly err by concluding these requests are relevant. Mollica claims the County 8 has a policy or practice of providing inadequate medical care in the Main Jail. Evidence about 9 how the County responded in other cases of allegedly inadequate medical care may lead to the 10 discovery of relevant information about its practices and policies for providing healthcare to 11 detainees. The County also contends the requests are unduly burdensome. Id. Again, it has not 12 proven searches would in fact be unduly burdensome, but rather has only asserted that claim. 13 3. Requests for Production Nos. 58 and 59. Mollica requested the production of two 14 individual defendants’ personnel files. See MJ Order at 5. The Magistrate Judge granted this 15 request. Id. First, the defendants agreed “performance evaluations and disciplinary records” 16 could be relevant, and second, “the remaining documents” such as “educational records, letters of 17 recommendation, letters of commendation, etc., were relevant measures of the employees’ 18 “caliber.” Id. The defendants request either clarification that they need only produce those items 19 the Magistrate Judge specifically listed or, in the alternative, an order relieving them of their 20 obligation to produce anything but the listed documents. See Mot. Recons. at 8–9. They also 21 argue the personnel files include private and irrelevant information. See id. The Magistrate 22 Judge did not err by determining that confidentiality designations can protect the defendants’ 23 privacy. See MJ Order at 5. Nor did the Magistrate Judge err by concluding personnel records 24 were relevant. A review of the defendants’ personnel records will likely to lead to the discovery 25 of admissible evidence about the defendants’ credibility or the County’s decisions to adopt or 26 ratify their actions. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 The motion to reconsider is denied. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: October 19, 2022.