USA v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc. et al

Filing 369

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/21/2021 DENYING 362 Motion for Reconsideration. (Coll, A)

Case 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-DB Document 369 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-DB

ORDER

v.
STERLING CENTRECORP INC.,
STEPHEN P. ELDER, and ELDER
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

18
19

In bringing the present Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 362), Defendant

20

SC Inc., formerly known as Sterling Centrecorp Inc., (“Defendant”) asks this Court to

21

reverse the Magistrate Judge’s February 21, 2020, Order granting a motion to compel

22

further discovery filed on behalf of Plaintiff the United States of America (“Plaintiff”). ECF

23

No. 359. Once Plaintiff obtained a $30 million monetary judgment against Defendant, it

24

served discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 concerning alleged

25

assets valued in excess of CAD $80 million that were transferred to related parties just

26

before Plaintiff filed the instant CERCLA cost recovery action, and well after Defendant

27

was placed on notice that Plaintiff sought reimbursement for costs incurred to clean up

28

hazardous substances at a California Superfund site previously owned by Defendant.
1

Case 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-DB Document 369 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 3

1

Even though this case was instituted in 2008, Defendant argues that because thirteen

2

years have now passed since the transfers at issue the information has become

3

essentially irrelevant. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion to compel, and on

4

March 6, 2020, Defendant moved to reconsider that decision.

5

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the assigned judge shall apply

6

the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local

7

Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and

8

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate

9

Judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

10

committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for

11

So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the

12

Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the

13

Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence

14

differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

15

(9th Cir. 1997).

16

After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge’s

17

decision was clearly erroneous. A judgment creditor like Plaintiff herein is accorded “a

18

wide scope or inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the judgment debtor”

19

and is entitled “to leave no stone unturned in the search for assets which might be used

20

to satisfy the judgment.” A&F Bahamas, LLC v. World Venture Grp., Inc., No. CV 17-

21

8523-VAP-SS, 2018 WL 5961297 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018). Given that sweeping

22

scope, the Magistrate Judge acted well within her discretion in compelling discovery, and

23

the fact that some of the discovery ordered may predate this litigation does not, under

24

the circumstances of this case, amount to an abuse of that discretion. Permitting

25

discovery as to the transferred assets does not mean that those assets will necessarily

26
27
28

1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district court judge to “modify or set aside any
portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Similarly, under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the
magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2

Case 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-DB Document 369 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 3

1

be available to satisfy Plaintiff’s judgment; it simply recognizes that Plaintiff is entitled to

2

understand the details of the transfers themselves so that it can decide whether to

3

pursue the matter further in enforcement proceedings. Defendant’s Request for

4

Reconsideration (ECF No. 362) is accordingly DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2021

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3