Hansford v. Solano County Department of Health and Human Services

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/28/11 ORDERING Defendant's Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judges Ruling 62 is hereby DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHAN HANSFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:08-cv-02232-MCE-KJN

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SOLANO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

16

Defendant.

17

----oo0oo----

18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendant County of Solano’s

20

(“Defendant”) Request for Reconsideration by the District Court

21

of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (ECF No. 62).

22

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s denial of its Motion

23

for a Protective Order limiting or precluding the production of

24

the personnel files of one former and five current Solano County

25

employees.

26

DENIED.

27

///

28

///

Defendant seeks

For the following reasons, Defendant’s Request is

1

BACKGROUND

1
2
3

Plaintiff Nathan Hansford (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint

4

against Defendant, Plaintiff’s employer, on July 21, 2008,

5

alleging causes of action under state law for unlawful

6

discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on religion.

7

October of 2009, Plaintiff propounded a variety of discovery

8

requests on Defendant, including document requests demanding the

9

production of the personnel files of five of Defendant’s

10

employees and one of its former employees, none of whom are

11

parties to this action.

12

Defendant failed to respond to those discovery requests for

13

approximately a year and a half.

14

Plaintiff had already sought a motion to compel responses to,

15

among other things, the above document requests, and Defendant

16

had filed a motion for a protective order seeking to limit or

17

preclude production of the personnel files.

In

18

Declaration of Wendy Musell, ¶ 2.

Id., ¶ 12.

In the meantime,

Id., ¶ 11.

Prior to the genesis of the above dispute, the parties, in

19

June of 2009, had nonetheless entered a stipulated protective

20

order pertaining specifically to the handing and confidentiality

21

of personnel files.

22

June 30, 2009, over two years ago.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

This Court approved that protective order on

2

1

On June 17, 2011, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s

2

motion to compel and, as pertinent here, denied Defendant’s

3

request for a protective order.

4

Defendant waived its objections to production by failing to

5

timely respond to Plaintiff’s requests and ordered Defendant to

6

provide the requested personnel files, subject to the existing

7

protective order and subject to further redactions of home

8

address information and any health, tax, credit or social

9

security information.

The magistrate judge found that

Defendant now seeks reconsideration of the

10

magistrate judge’s ruling and asks this Court to grant

11

Defendant’s request for a protective order and to either further

12

limit the scope of discovery or to subject the personnel files to

13

in camera review.

14
STANDARD

15
16
17

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the

18

assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to

19

law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as

20

specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

21

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

22

must accept the magistrate judge’s decision unless it has a

23

“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

24

Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers

25

Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).

26

///

27

///

28

///

Under this standard, the Court

3

1

If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the magistrate

2

judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in

3

its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that

4

it would have weighed the evidence differently.

5

Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

6

(9th Cir. 1997).

Phoenix Eng. &

7
ANALYSIS

8
9
10

Nothing before this Court indicates the magistrate judge

11

clearly erred.

First, it is well-settled that a failure to

12

respond to discovery requests waives objections, including those

13

based on privilege.

14

Cir. 1981).

15

employees implicated in this case are not absolute.

16

those rights “may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public

17

interest.

18

state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in

19

connection with legal proceedings.”

20

137 Cal. App. 3d 313, 315-16 (1982) (internal citations and

21

quotations omitted).

22

to the subject matter of the litigation are discoverable.

23

v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 859 (1978).

24

the personnel records of individuals allegedly responsible for,

25

or who had knowledge of, the claimed harassment, discrimination

26

and/or retaliation.

These records are entirely relevant to

27

Plaintiff’s claims.

See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165

28

F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th

In addition, the privacy rights of the third-party
Rather,

One such interest...is the historically important

Moskowitz v. Superior Court,

Documents directly relevant and essential

4

Britt

Plaintiff seeks

1

Moreover, since production of the records is subject to an

2

existing protective order and since the magistrate judge limited

3

the most recent production order to further exclude, for example,

4

health, tax, and financial information, Defendant has failed to

5

point to any clear error here.

6
CONCLUSION

7
8
9

Accordingly, Defendant’s Request for Reconsideration by the

10

District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (ECF No. 62) is

11

hereby DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2011

14
15
16

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5