Gopher Media LLC. v. Spain ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GOPHER MEDIA LLC, Case No.: 19-cv-2280-CAB-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. VACATE OR SET ASIDE PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE 13 PHILLIP SPAIN and STEVEN JUDGE’S DISCOVERY ORDER MARINKOVICH, 14 Defendants. 15 [Doc. No. 50] 16 17 On August 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford issued an order on a joint 18 motion for determination of a discovery dispute concerning electronically stored 19 information (“ESI”). [Doc. No. 36.] In the order, Judge Crawford ordered Plaintiff to 20 produce cell phones, laptops, tablets, and memory storage devices in use by Plaintiff’s chief 21 executive officer, Ajay Thakore, for forensic examination. [Id. at 8.] On September 25, 22 2020, Plaintiff moved before Judge Crawford for reconsideration of her order that Plaintiff 23 produce Mr. Thakore’s devices. [Doc. No. 42.] Judge Crawford denied Plaintiff’s motion 24 for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 48.] Plaintiff now objects to Judge Crawford’s order for 25 Plaintiff to produce Mr. Thakore’s devices and moves for that aspect of Judge Crawford’s 26 order to be vacated or set aside. [Doc. No. 50.] 27 Under Rule 72(a), a party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a 28 magistrate judge within fourteen days after service of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). 1 || District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A 2 || district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only 3 || ““where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary 4 ||to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The reviewing court 5 ||may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and 6 || County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual findings 8 ||while the ‘the contrary to law’ standard applies to the magistrate judge’s legal 9 ||conclusions.” Yent v. Baca, No. CV-01-10672 PA(VBKX), 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 10 }|(C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2002). “[A] a magistrate [judge]’s order is ‘clearly erroneous’ if, after 11 considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction 12 || that a mistake has been committed, and the order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to apply 13 || or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Id. “The objecting party 14 || carries the burden to show that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary 15 law.” In re: Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., TCPA Litig., No. 11-MD-2286-MMA (MDD), 16 2020 WL 6504416, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020). 17 Here, upon review of the entire record, including Judge Crawford’s orders and the 18 || parties’ briefs, the Court is not persuaded that Judge Crawford’s order requiring Plaintiff 19 || to produce Mr. Thakore’s devices for forensic inspection was clearly erroneous or contrary 20 law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection to Judge Crawford’s order that Plaintiff produce 21 || Mr. Thakore’s devices is OVERRULED, and the motion to set aside is DENIED. Plaintiff 22 ||shall comply with Judge Crawford’s orders concerning the production of Mr. Thakore’s 23 ||devices [Doc. Nos. 36 and 48] by November 23, 2020. 24 It is SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: November 18, 2020 26 Y g 27 28 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge