Dunsmore v. State of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL ANDRADE, ERNEST 12 ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ORDER ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA 13 LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, (Doc. Nos. 541, 542) 14 CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO 15 SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of 16 themselves and all others similarly situated, 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 20 DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY 21 PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 Presently before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s (the “County”) 24 objections to Magistrate Judge David Leshner’s December 13, 2023 Order granting 25 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of CIRB Reports (“December 13 Order”), (Doc. 26 No. 468), and February 8, 2024 Supplemental Order (“February 8 Order”), (Doc. No. 529). 27 (Doc. No. 541.) The County also filed an ex parte application to stay the December 13 and 28 1 February 8 Orders pending the outcome of this instant order, and until a ruling is issued in 2 Greer c. City of San Diego, 23-55607, which is currently before the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 3 No. 541.) Magistrate Judge Leshner has ruled on a motion to stay filed by the County based 4 on these same arguments. (See Doc. Nos. 510, Defendants’ Request for Stay of Production; 5 & 533, February 12, 2024 Order (“February 12 Order”) denying the request to stay.) Thus, 6 this Court only has the power to review the County’s request for a stay under Federal Rule 7 of Civil Procedure 72(a) as an objection to the February 12 Order. Pursuant to Civil Local 8 Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted 9 and without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES the 10 County’s objections. 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 On December 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge David Leshner issued the December 13 13 Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of twenty-five reports of the San 14 Diego Sheriff’s Department’s Critical Incident Review Board (the “CIRB”). (Doc. No. 15 468.) Thereafter, on January 26, 2024, Judge Leshner ordered the County to produce the 16 redacted CIRB Reports to Plaintiffs “by not later than January 31, 2024.” (Doc. No. 507.) 17 On January 29, 2024, the County filed a motion to stay because it “intends to appeal 18 [the January 26, 2024 Order] to the District Court Judge Anthony Battaglia for review.” 19 (Doc. No. 510.) The February 8 Order thereafter ordered “that the County may maintain 20 its proposed redactions to the CIRB Reports” and further noted that “[t]he deadline for 21 Defendants to produce the CIRB Reports remains stayed pending the Court’s order on 22 Defendants’ request for a stay.” (Doc. No. 529 at 2.) In the February 12 Order, Judge 23 Leshner denied the County’s request for a stay and ordered Defendants to “produce the 34 24 CIRB Reports at issue, with redactions as approved by the Court, by not later than 25 February 16, 2024.” (Doc. No. 533.) 26 The instant objections follow. (Doc. Nos. 541, 542.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within 3 fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge’s 4 order will be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; 28 U.S.C. 5 § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to factual findings and 6 discretionary decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters. 7 F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000); Joiner v. 8 Hercules, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 695, 697 (S.D. Ga. 1996) (reviewing magistrate judge’s order 9 addressing attorney-client issues in discovery for clear error). In contrast, the “contrary to 10 law” standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate 11 judge. See e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Grp., Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Med. Imaging 12 Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F. Supp. 717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district 13 court should exercise its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge’s legal 14 conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). 15 “Non-dispositive matters include ‘evidentiary rulings, pretrial discovery matters, 16 and the imposition of sanctions for discovery abuses.’” Estakhrian v. Obenstine, No. CV 17 11-03480 GAC(CWx), 2012 WL 12884889, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (quoting 18 Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503, 518 (D. N.J. 2008)); see also Hoar v. Sara Lee 19 Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Matters concerning discovery generally are 20 considered ‘nondispositive’ of the litigation”). There is no doubt that the dispute currently 21 before the Court involves a pretrial-discovery matter because it is based on discovery 22 disputes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Because the challenge to the magistrate judge’s finding involves a discretionary 25 decision made in connection with a non-dispositive pretrial discovery matter, the clearly- 26 erroneous standard applies. See Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. at 378. Upon 27 reviewing the relevant documents—including the County’s objections and the Magistrate 28 Judge’s December 13, February 8, and February 12 Orders—and taking into account that 1 the clearly-erroneous standard is “significantly deferential,” the Court cannot reach a 2 “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Concrete Pipe & 3 Prods. of Cal., 508 U.S. at 623. 4 The Court first reiterates that a party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order 5 of a magistrate judge within fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 72(a). The County’s objection to Judge Leshner’s December 13 Order was filed on 7 February 15, 2024, long after the fourteen-day deadline to file its objection, and is thus 8 untimely. The time to have moved for review ended in late December 2023. The Court 9 OVERRULES the County’s objection as to the December 13 Order. 10 Regarding the February 8 Order (ordering that the County may maintain its proposed 11 redactions and staying production until the Court’s order on the County’s request for a 12 stay) and February 12 Order (denying the County’s request for a stay and ordering 13 production by not later than February 16, 2024), there is nothing before the Court meeting 14 the clearly erroneous standard that demonstrates the Magistrate Judge did not thoroughly 15 consider the County’s concerns that were presented to him. The February 8 Order found 16 the County’s proposed redactions were “narrowly tailored” and “consistent with the 17 precept that the attorney-client privilege is ‘strictly construed,’ and ‘protects only those 18 disclosures necessary to obtain informed legal advice which may not have been made 19 absent privilege.” (Doc. No. 529 at 1 (internal citations omitted).) 20 Moreover, the Magistrate Judge applied the relevant test in the February 12 Order. 21 To evaluate whether to stay a magistrate judge’s order, the court must apply a four-factor 22 test: “(1) whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits; 23 (2) whether the movant has made a showing of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted; 24 (3) whether the granting of the stay would substantially harm the other parties; and (4) 25 whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest.” In re Republic of Ecuador, 26 No. 10-MC-80087 CRB (NC), 2012 WL 13187177, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) (citing 27 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)). Weighing each factor, the Magistrate Judge 28 concluded that a stay was not warranted. (Doc. No. 533 at 2.) Most importantly, the | || February 12 Order found “Defendants simply repeat the arguments they made in opposition 2 ||to the motion to compel” and did not find “the pending appeal in Greer v. County of San 3 Diego undermines its findings that the CIRB Reports are not privileged, as the Court 4 ||understands that appeal to bear on the separate issue of whether the reports should have 5 || been disclosed to the media.” (/d.) Accordingly, the County’s objections to the Magistrate 6 || Judge’s Orders do not establish that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or 7 || contrary to law. 8 ||1V. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES the County’s objections to 10 Magistrate Judge David Leshner’s Orders. (Doc. Nos. 541, 542.) The Court ORDERS 1 Defendants to produce the CIRB Reports as ordered by Magistrate Judge Leshner by not 12 later than Tuesday, February 20, 2024. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: February 16, 2024 © 16 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28