1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTINE ANN RUSSELL, Case No.: 21cv1029-LL-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 14 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 ORDER 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 38] 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin’s 19 September 21, 2022 Order [ECF No. 37] that denied Plaintiff’s request to modify the case 20 scheduling order to permit ninety additional days for discovery so that she may file a 21 motion to stay the case and appeal the denial of her requests for appointed counsel. 22 ECF No. 38. After reviewing the magistrate judge’s Order, Plaintiff’s arguments, and the 23 relevant case law, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection for the reasons set forth below. 24 A party may file objections to magistrate judge orders on pretrial matters within 25 fourteen days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The district court reviews 26 whether the decision is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; see also Osband v. 27 Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). 28 “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to factual findings and discretionary decisions 1 made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & 2 Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000). “Clearly erroneous” review is 3 “significantly deferential, requiring a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 4 committed.’” Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for 5 S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). The “contrary to law” standard permits the district judge 6 to independently review purely legal determinations by the magistrate judge. Computer 7 Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). 8 Plaintiff timely filed her objection to the Order denying her request to modify the 9 case scheduling order, which is a non-dispositive pretrial discovery matter. Consequently, 10 the Court will modify or set aside the Order only if it has a “definite and firm conviction 11 that a mistake has been committed.” 12 Plaintiff refutes the magistrate judge’s finding that she has not been diligent in her 13 prosecution or discovery obligations by detailing her communications with opposing 14 counsel, her reasons for refusing to sign the proposed medical release, her ongoing serious 15 health issues, and lack of legal help. ECF No. 38. 16 The Court does not find the magistrate judge’s order was clearly erroneous. In 17 deciding whether the case scheduling order should be modified, the magistrate judge 18 applied the correct legal standard and properly looked to Plaintiff’s reasons for seeking the 19 continuance and whether she had been diligent. ECF No. 37 at 2. The magistrate judge 20 considered the reasons Plaintiff reiterates here but found that Plaintiff’s refusal to provide 21 a medical release or records was preventing the case from moving forward. Id. at 3–4. 22 Plaintiff was ordered by the magistrate judge to help resolve this impasse by responding to 23 Defendant’s motion to compel release of her medical records by August 29, 2022. 24 ECF No. 32. However, Plaintiff failed to respond. ECF No. 37 at 4. The magistrate judge 25 found Plaintiff did not demonstrate diligence when she missed deadlines and ignored court 26 orders, and thus found no good cause for a ninety-day continuance to allow Plaintiff to file 27 a motion to stay and to appeal her denial of motions to appoint counsel. Id. at 4. The Court 28 does not have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed when the 1 ||magistrate judge reached these conclusions. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES 2 || Plaintiff's objection to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin’s September 21, 2022 Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: November 10, 2022 NO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28