Service Employees International Union, CTW/CLC et al v. SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West et al

Filing 420

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S NOVEMBER 19 DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 2, 2009. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, DAVID REGAN and ELISEO MEDINA, as trustees for SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST and fiduciaries of the SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST AND JOINT EMPLOYER EDUCATION FUND, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST, an unincorporated association and fiduciary of the SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST AND JOINT EMPLOYER EDUCATION FUND, and REBECCA COLLINS, as a participant in the SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST AND JOINT EMPLOYER EDUCATION FUND, Plaintiffs, v. SAL ROSELLI, JORGE RODRIGUEZ, JOAN EMSLIE, JOHN BORSOS, JOHN VELLARDITA, GABE KRISTAL, PAUL KUMAR, MARTHA FIGUEROA, BARBARA LEWIS, PHYLLIS WILLETT, DANIEL MARTIN, LAURA KURRE, RALPH CORNEJO, WILL CLAYTON, GLENN GOLDSTEIN, FRED SEAVEY, MARK KIPFER, AARON BRICKMAN, IAN SELDEN, GAIL BUHLER, FREJA NELSON, ANDREW REID, NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS; MARYRUTH GROSS, CONNIE WILSON, ARLENE PEASNALL, CHERIE KUNOLD, FAYE LINCOLN, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-00404 WHA

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

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S NOVEMBER 19 DISCOVERY ORDER

In this action directed at wrongs allegedly committed by former officers of a parent union before quitting to form a competing union, plaintiffs object to two of the rulings in the November 19 discovery order by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. First, plaintiffs object that the order

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

denied in part their motion to compel defendants to produce databases and database source material. Specifically, it required only that defendants disclose "their databases listing NUHW supporters" and not any broader databases or other source material. Plaintiffs also object that the November 19 order required that defendants produce any such databases only to plaintiffs' designated forensic expert, not to plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel. Second, plaintiffs object that the November 19 order denied their request to compel defendants to produce past staff lists. In opposing plaintiffs' request before Magistrate Judge James, defendants asserted that they did not maintain staff lists and therefore had nothing more to produce. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that a magistrate judge's nondispositive order must be accepted unless it is "clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Plaintiffs do not identify in the November 19 order any specific findings of fact that they assert are clearly erroneous nor any legal conclusions that they assert are contrary to law. They merely ask the Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the magistrate judge. But the reviewing district court is not permitted to simply substitute its judgment. Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, plaintiffs' objections to the November 19 discovery order are OVERRULED. The November 19 discovery order is AFFIRMED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: December 2, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2