Blight v. Manteca et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/23/2017 DENYING 71 Defendants' Request for Reconsideration. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

JOANNE BLIGHT,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

CITY OF MANTECA; Manteca
Police Department Detectives
ARMANDO GARCIA and IAN
OSBORN; and Manteca Police
Department Sergeants PAUL
CARMONA and CHRIS MRAZ;
Defendants.

20

----oo0oo----

21

23
24
25
26
27

ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING

v.

19

22

CIV. NO. 2:15-2513 WBS AC

Plaintiff Joanne Blight brought this action against
defendants the City of Manteca, Manteca Police Department
Detectives Armando Garcia and Ian Osborn, and Manteca Police
Department Sergeants Paul Carmona and Chris Mraz, alleging that
defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they engaged
in a “SWAT style” search of her home.
No. 1).)

(Compl. ¶¶ 19, 32 (Docket

Defendants claim that the search was authorized by a

28
1

1

warrant issued by a state court pursuant to an affidavit they had

2

submitted to the state court containing information provided by a

3

confidential informant (“CI”).

4

misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the CI told

5

them in their affidavit to the state court.

Plaintiff claims that defendants

6

On February 10, 2017, the magistrate judge in this case

7

issued an order (“February 10 order”) granting plaintiff’s motion

8

to compel the deposition of the CI on grounds that the CI’s

9

deposition is necessary to a “fair presentation” of plaintiff’s

10

claim that defendants misrepresented or omitted material aspects

11

of what the CI told them in their affidavit to the state court.

12

(Feb. 10, 2017 Order at 3, 6 (Docket No. 55).)

13

submitted a request for reconsideration of the February 10 order

14

on February 24.

15

contained several redactions which the court did not authorize in

16

violation of Local Rule 140(b).

17

“without prejudice to defendants’ right to re-file [the] request

18

in a form consistent with” Local Rule 140(b).

19

Order (Docket No. 70).)

20

amended request for reconsideration of the February 10 order,

21

which contains no redactions.

Defendants

(Defs.’ Req. (Docket No. 62).)

That request

The court denied that request

(Apr. 5, 2017

Before the court now is defendants’

(Defs.’ Am. Req. (Docket No. 71).)

22

The court reviews magistrate rulings on non-dispositive

23

motions under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard

24

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

25

72(a); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f); see also Computer Econs., Inc. v.

26

Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999).

27

That standard is highly deferential, see United States v. Abonce–

28

Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968–69 (9th Cir. 2001), and does not allow
2

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

the court to “simply substitute its judgment” for that of the

2

magistrate judge, Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951

3

F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

4

Defendants argue that the February 10 order was

5

“contrary to the law” because United States v. Rowland, 464 F.3d

6

899 (9th Cir. 2006) compels a different result than the result

7

reached in the February 10 order.

8

Rowland, according to defendants, stands for the proposition that

9

mere speculation of police deception with respect to a warrant-

(Defs.’ Am. Req. at 6-7.)

10

procuring affidavit is “not sufficient grounds” to compel the

11

police to reveal confidential sources they relied upon in making

12

representations in the affidavit.1

13

according to defendants, merely speculates that defendants

14

misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the CI told

15

them in their affidavit to the state court.

16

offering any facts that suggest what defendants stated in their

17

affidavit to the state court was deceptive, defendants contend,

18

plaintiff cannot compel the deposition of the CI under Rowland.

19

(Id. at 6.)

Plaintiff,

(Id. at 7.)

Without

Defendants raised this argument in their brief opposing

20

plaintiff’s motion to compel, and the magistrate judge addressed

21

this argument in the February 10 order.

In the February 10

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Rowland was a case in which the Ninth Circuit held that
a defendant charged with a crime on the basis of information
provided by a CI may not compel “discovery of information related
to the [CI’s] . . . credibility and background” where the
defendant “has not articulated any specific reasons to disbelieve
the [CI’s] testimony.” Rowland, 464 F.3d at 909. The court will
assume, without deciding, that Rowland stands for the proposition
defendants cite it for because, as this Order explains,
defendants’ amended request for reconsideration fails even under
that assumption.
3

1

order, the magistrate judge stated that “plaintiff is not simply

2

speculating” that defendants misrepresented or omitted material

3

aspects of what the CI told them in their affidavit to the state

4

court.

5

contained in [defendant’s] affidavit . . . compared with the

6

actual results of the search,” the magistrate judge found, “could

7

lead a reasonable person to conclude that further inquiry into

8

the possibility of judicial deception [by defendants] is

9

warranted.”2

(Feb. 10, 2017 Order at 3.)

“Specific information

(Id.)

10

Nothing in defendants’ amended request for

11

reconsideration shows that the magistrate judge’s finding that

12

plaintiff is not merely speculating about judicial deception was

13

clearly erroneous.

14

disagree with the magistrate judge’s finding.

15

Req. at 7 (arguing that discrepancies between defendants’

16

affidavit and the results of defendants’ search of plaintiff’s

17

home “speak[] more to the [CI] simply being mistaken, rather than

18

[defendants] engaging in judicial deception”).)

19

disagreement on defendants’ part with the magistrate judge’s

20

finding is not sufficient to show that the finding was clearly

It appears, instead, that defendants simply
(See Defs.’ Am.

Mere

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendants’ affidavit stated that a certain drug dealer
lived in plaintiff’s home. When defendants searched plaintiff’s
home, that person was not found there. The magistrate judge
construed this discrepancy, along with the fact that the CI “was
familiar with” plaintiff’s home, to indicate that plaintiff’s
judicial deception claim is not mere speculation. (See Feb. 8,
2017 Tr. at 6 (Docket No. 64).) The magistrate judge provided
this analysis at the hearing for plaintiff’s motion to compel,
but omitted the analysis from the February 10 order because the
contents of defendants’ affidavit and the CI’s knowledge are
subject to a stipulated protective order. This court omits the
analysis from this Order for the same reason.
4

1

erroneous.

2

order was “contrary to” Rowland.

3

Thus, defendants have not shown that the February 10

Because defendants have not shown that the February 10

4

order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the court will

5

deny their amended request for reconsideration.

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ amended

7

request for reconsideration (Docket No. 71) of the magistrate

8

judge’s February 10, 2017 order be, and the same hereby is,

9

DENIED.

10

Dated:

May 23, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5