Sandra Blount v. City of Los Angeles et al
Filing
77
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MUMMS OCTOBER 14, 2014 ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES 64 . The temporary stay on the payment of awarded fees (Docket No. 66) is lifted, and Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of this order to comply with Magistrate Judge Mumms October 14, 2014 order by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 12/8/2014 (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SANDRA BLOUNT aka SANDRA
CASTRO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
15
Defendants.
16
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-08672 DDP (AGRx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MUMM’S OCTOBER 14, 2014 ORDER
AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
[DKT. NO. 64]
17
18
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for review of
19
Magistrate Judge Mumm’s order awarding Plaintiff attorney’s fees of
20
$2,000.00 (the “Motion”). (Docket No. 64.) For the reasons stated
21
in this order, the Motion is DENIED.
22
I. Background
23
Plaintiff Sandra Blount (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil rights
24
action against Defendants City of Los Angeles and current/former
25
Los Angeles Police Officers Trevin Grant, Philip Clayson, and
26
Alejandro Arredondo (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 22,
27
2014, the Court granted an ex parte application to modify the
28
scheduling order to allow Plaintiff additional time to obtain
1
information needed to properly serve the correct Alejandro
2
Arredondo after it was discovered that the person by that name who
3
had been served was not the individual involved in the underlying
4
incident. (Docket No. 45.) On September 16, 2014, apparently after
5
efforts to obtain Arredondo’s contact information from the City
6
without the need for a motion, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel,
7
seeking the last known address, drivers license number, and/or
8
birth date of Defendant Alejandro Arredondo for the purposes of
9
being able to serve the proper defendant. (Docket No. 46; see also
10
Guizar Decl., Docket No. 46-1.) Magistrate Judge Mumm granted the
11
motion to compel at the October 7, 2014 hearing on the motion and
12
took under submission the issue of whether to grant Plaintiff’s
13
request for attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the motion
14
to compel. (Docket No. 51.) On October 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge
15
Mumm granted Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, awarding
16
$2,000.1 (Docket No. 54.) Magistrate Judge Mumm’s short order
17
indicated that he awarded fees because “the motion should not have
18
been necessary” and “[g]iven the issues involved, the parties
19
should have been able to work out a resolution without the
20
necessity of Court intervention.” (Id.) Defendants now seek this
21
Court’s review of the fee award. (Docket No. 64.)
22
II. Legal Standard
23
Pursuant to Local Rule 72-2.1,“[a]ny party objecting under
24
F.R.Civ.P. 72(a) to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a pretrial
25
matter not dispositive of a claim or defense must file a motion for
26
review by the assigned District Judge, designating specific
27
28
1
Plaintiff sought $11,000 in fees. (Docket No. 46-1, ¶ 24.)
2
1
portions of the ruling objected to and stating the grounds for the
2
objections.” Under this rule, a District Court will not modify or
3
set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting party
4
shows that the ruling was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
5
28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(A); China Nat’l Metal Prods. Import/Export
6
Co. v. Apex Digital, Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1177 (C.D. Cal.
7
2001); Dewey v. Adams, 2013 WL 8291427, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
8
“The clearly erroneous standard applies to the magistrate judge’s
9
factual findings while the contrary to law standard applies to the
10
magistrate judge’s legal conclusions, which are reviewed de novo.”
11
China Nat’l, 155 F.Supp.2d at 1177; see also Wolpin v. Philip
12
Morris, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 418, 422 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
13
III. Discussion
14
Under Rule 37, if a discovery motion is granted, “the court
15
must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or
16
deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay the
17
movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
18
including attorney’s fees. But the court must not order this
19
payment if: (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in
20
good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court
21
action; (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
22
objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances
23
make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(a)(5)(A).
24
Defendants contend that their opposition to the motion to
25
compel, necessitating a ruling by Magistrate Judge Mumm, was
26
substantially justified and, therefore, that no attorney’s fees
27
should have been awarded. Most of Defendants’ argument revolves
28
around the fact that the City offered to turn over the requested
3
1
contact information much earlier in this litigation if Plaintiff
2
filed an ex parte application for the release of the information
3
subject to a protective order. This offer occurred in April 2012,
4
while the action was pending in state court. Plaintiff never
5
pursued this offer, however, because Plaintiff erroneously believed
6
that she had already located and served Alejandro Arredondo and,
7
therefore, that she had no need for the offered information.
8
9
Now that Plaintiff has discovered her error and been permitted
to locate and serve the correct Alejandro Arredondo, she again
10
seeks his contact information from the City. It does appear that
11
this matter could have been resolved without necessitating a motion
12
to compel, but who should bear the blame for failing to resolve
13
this issue is unclear. Plaintiff contends that she offered to sign
14
a protective order regarding the information, but that Defendants
15
still refused to hand it over, forcing her to file the motion.
16
Defendants claim that Plaintiff should have filed an ex parte and,
17
further, that Plaintiff should have prepared a protective order for
18
review by Defendants’ counsel; because Plaintiff failed to take
19
either course of action, Defendants argue that they acted
20
reasonably in withholding the confidential information.
21
Further complicating matters, Defendants’ counsel previously
22
answered the complaint in this action on behalf of the erroneously
23
served Alejandro Arredondo. Not only that, but Defendants’ counsel
24
also served discovery and otherwise affirmatively pursued a defense
25
of the served individual, thereby effectively representing him in
26
this action and supporting the incorrect impression that the
27
correct party had been served. Throughout this time, Plaintiff was
28
never informed by Defendants’ counsel that the served individual
4
1
was not the Alejandro Arredondo who participated in the underlying
2
incident. As a result, Defendants’ counsel’s course of conduct was
3
certainly a contributing factor to the case arriving at a point
4
where Plaintiff needed to file the motion to compel.
5
Given the convoluted procedural history in this case, the
6
Court is not convinced that Magistrate Judge Mumm’s decision to
7
award $2,000 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff was clearly erroneous
8
or contrary to law. Magistrate Judge Mumm’s determination that the
9
issue could have been resolved without resort to a motion to compel
10
and that Defendants were at fault for forcing Plaintiff to file the
11
motion to compel is a reasonable one. Further, though he did not
12
explain how he determined that $2,000 was an appropriate award, it
13
was not clearly erroneous to reduce the amount of fees awarded
14
based on an assessment of the amount of work reasonably required in
15
connection with the motion to compel and the reasonable hourly rate
16
for Plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for
17
review.
18
Plaintiff, in opposing the Motion, also requests that this
19
Court order additional sanctions against Defendants for filing the
20
Motion, which she deems “frivolous.” However, the Court declines to
21
order additional sanctions at this time.
22
IV. Conclusion
23
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. The temporary
24
stay on the payment of awarded fees (Docket No. 66) is lifted, and
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
5
1
Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of this order to comply
2
with Magistrate Judge Mumm’s October 14, 2014 order.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: December 8, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?