AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Integral Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 185

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 167 Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9

AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13

INTEGRAL CONSULTING, INC. et
al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-01735-SC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19

I. INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is Defendant Integral Consulting, Inc.'s

20
21

("Integral") Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order

22

of Magistrate Judge.

23

Magistrate Judge Cousins' order of October 9, 2014, which requires

24

Integral to produce additional discovery in accordance with search

25

parameters specified by Plaintiff AMEC Environment &

26

Infrastructure, Inc. ("AMEC").

27

///

28

///

ECF No. 167 ("Mot.").

Integral objects to

ECF No. 162 ("Magistrate Order").

1
2

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Judge Cousins issued his order on October 9, 2014.

Federal

nondispositive pretrial orders by magistrate judges be served and

5

filed within fourteen days of service of the order.

6

timely objected, filing its motion exactly fourteen days after

7

Judge Cousins issued his order.

8

United States District Court

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) requires that objections to

4

For the Northern District of California

3

District provide that:

Integral

The Civil Local Rules in this

9
10
11
12
13
14

Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge,
no response need be filed and no hearing will be held
concerning the motion.
The District Judge may deny the
motion by written order at any time, but may not grant it
without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to
respond.
If no order denying the motion or setting a
briefing schedule is made within 14 days of filing the
motion, the motion shall be deemed denied.
The Clerk
shall notify parties when a motion has been deemed
denied.

15

Civ. L.R. 72-2.

When Integral filed its motion, the Court's

16

Electronic Court Filing System ("ECF") automatically generated a

17

briefing schedule for the motion.

18

oppositions to Integral's motions were due on November 6, fourteen

19

days after Integral filed its motion and the day that the motion

20

would be deemed denied absent other action by the Court pursuant to

21

Local Rule 72-2.

22

12, the Clerk issued a notice vacating the hearing on Integral's

23

motion.

That schedule specified that

AMEC did not file an opposition, and on November

ECF No. 172.

24

On November 13, Integral filed a notice of non-opposition to

25

its motion and asked the Court to grant its unopposed motion for

26

relief.

27

asserting that Local Rule 72-2 did not require it to file an

28

opposition brief and that the motion should have been deemed denied

ECF No. 174.

The same day, AMEC filed an opposition brief

2

1

as of November 6.

ECF No. 175 ("Opp'n").

2

14, Integral filed a reply brief asserting that the automatically

3

generated ECF deadlines constituted a briefing schedule for its

4

motion.

5

that the motion was deemed denied.

ECF No. 176 ("Reply").

The next day, November

The Clerk never issued a notice

6
7

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8

III. LEGAL STANDARD
When a party objects to a magistrate judge's nondispositive

9

pretrial order, "[t]he district judge in the case must consider

10

timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order

11

that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."

12

72(a).

13

clear error, and the magistrate's legal conclusions are reviewed to

14

determine whether they are contrary to law."

15

Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

16

standard is highly deferential -- the district judge may not simply

17

substitute his or her judgment for that of the magistrate judge."

18

Campbell v. City of Milpitas, No. 13-CV-03817-BLF, 2014 WL 5077135,

19

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014) (citing Grimes v. City & Cnty. of

20

San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991)).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

"The magistrate's factual determinations are reviewed for

Perry v.
"This

21
22
23

IV. DISCUSSION
Before analyzing the merits of Integral's objection, the Court

24

pauses to clarify the procedural history of this case.

25

Rule 72-2 specifies that "[i]f no order denying the motion or

26

setting a briefing schedule is made within 14 days of filing the

27

motion, the motion shall be deemed denied" (emphasis added).

28

automatic briefing schedule generated by ECF did not constitute an

3

Civil Local

The

contrary, it is the usual practice of district judges in this

3

District to issue orders setting briefing schedules on motions for

4

relief from nondispositive magistrate orders if the district judge

5

intends to consider additional arguments before denying the motion.

6

See, e.g., Order Setting Briefing Schedule on Plaintiff's Motion

7

for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge

8

United States District Court

order setting a briefing schedule for Integral's motion.

2

For the Northern District of California

1

On the

(ECF No. 40), Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Peter's Bakery, No.

9

13-cv-04507-BLF (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014); Order Setting Briefing

10

Schedule for Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order

11

of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 167), Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI

12

Corp., No. C-11-2709 EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013).

13

Court did not issue an order denying the motion or setting a

14

briefing schedule, the motion should have been deemed denied as of

15

November 6, 2014.

16

here.

Because the

However, the Court will explain its reasoning

17

In his order, Judge Cousins found that AMEC's discovery

18

requests sought relevant information and held that the remaining

19

question was "whether the burden of producing the information

20

outweighs its probative value."

21

magistrate judge's determination of relevance is a legal

22

conclusion, district courts have tended not to disturb such

23

conclusions absent abuse of discretion.

24

Opportunity Comm'n v. Peters' Bakery, No. 13-CV-04507-BLF, 2014 WL

25

4648087, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) ("When a discovery order

26

centers on a magistrate's determination of relevance, 'the standard

27

of review in most instances is not the explicit statutory language,

28

but the clearly implicit standard of abuse of discretion.'")

Magistrate Order at 2.

4

Though a

See Equal Emp't

1

(citing Geophysical Sys. Corp. v. Raytheon Co., 117 F.R.D. 646, 647

2

(C.D. Cal. 1987)).

3

Integral objects on two grounds to Judge Cousins' order.

from 11 custodians outweighs the benefit of discovery from those

6

custodians.

7

custodians before requesting document productions related to them

8

United States District Court

First, Integral objects that the expense of document collection

5

For the Northern District of California

4

because some of those custodians are associated with few or no

9

relevant documents.

Integral argues that AMEC should have deposed those

Mot. at 3-4.

The Court cannot conclude that

10

conducting eleven additional depositions would be less onerous or

11

expensive than the document production that will result from Judge

12

Cousins' order.

13

that Judge Cousins' finding that AMEC sought potentially relevant

14

information was in error.

15

Judge Cousins' relevance determination nor his conclusion that the

16

benefits of discovery outweighed its costs are contrary to law.

17

is also important to note that Integral's primary objection to this

18

discovery is that it is expensive.

19

made clear that he will consider the imposition of cost sharing,

20

and will consider "the cooperation, communication, and

21

reasonableness shown by each side."

22

Court finds that Judge Cousins' solution was eminently appropriate

23

and well within his discretion, and that it should assuage

24

Integral's concerns about the costs of this additional discovery.

25

Nor does Integral provide a convincing conclusion

Therefore, the Court finds that neither

Id.

It

However, Judge Cousins

Magistrate Order at 2.

The

Integral's second objection is that AMEC failed to include

26

date parameters to which the parties had previously agreed.

Mot.

27

at 4-5.

28

approved included new custodians and terms that were not among

However, the search terms that Judge Cousins ultimately

5

1

those limited to those particular dates.

See id.; compare ECF No.

2

143-6, with ECF No. 145 at 11-19.

3

different date range for certain search terms in its motion papers.

4

Mot. at 5.

5

was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Indeed, Integral even proposes a

Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Cousins' order

6
7

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10

V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Integral
Consulting, Inc.'s motion for Motion for Relief from Nondispositive
Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge is DENIED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 19, 2014

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6