Campbell et al v. City of Milpitas et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING 59 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/9/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

SHANNON CAMPBELL, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-03817-BLF

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11

CITY OF MILPITAS, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
[Re: ECF 59]

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from a nondispositive order issued by

14
15

Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, which granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to

16

compel further responses to Defendants’ Request for Production, Set 3. See Order, ECF 48. The

17

Court has considered Judge Grewal’s order, Plaintiffs’ motion, and Defendants’ opposition. For

18

the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.

19
20

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may refer nondispositive pretrial matters to a magistrate judge under 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The district court “may reconsider any pretrial matter under this

22

subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

23

contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of a

24

nondispositive order, “the magistrate’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the

25

magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry

26

v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). This standard is highly deferential –

27

the district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgment for that of the magistrate judge.

28

Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs Shannon Campbell and Sherisa Anderson are members of a group that seeks to

3

prevent mistreatment of circus animals. Plaintiffs travel to circus venues in order to videotape the

4

treatment and living conditions of circus animals, distribute leaflets to circus patrons, and

5

participate in demonstrations. The present lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs’ efforts to observe the

6

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus’s transport of animals from the Oracle Arena in

7

Oakland, California to the San Jose Arena in San Jose, California.
On August 13, 2012, Plaintiffs and two other individuals, Keegan Kuhn and Joseph

9

Cuviello, waited near the San Jose Arena in expectation of observing the animals being unloaded

10

at a nearby train station. When circus trucks departed the San Jose Arena, the waiting individuals

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

realized that the animals must be traveling by a different route. They followed the circus trucks by

12

car to the City of Milpitas, where they videotaped the animals as they were unloaded at a Milpitas

13

train station and then were loaded onto trucks for transport to the San Jose Arena. As Plaintiffs,

14

Kuhn, and Cuviello walked toward their cars, intending to return to the San Jose Arena to observe

15

the animals being unloaded from the trucks, they were stopped by Milpitas police officers. The

16

officers informed them that they were being detained because a circus employee had reported

17

them for reckless driving. Plaintiffs, Kuhn, and Cuviello were detained for an hour and a half and

18

then released without citation. Plaintiffs assert federal and state claims against the City of

19

Milpitas and several individual Milpitas Police Officers arising from these events.

20

On August 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted in part and denied in part

21

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to Defendants’ Request for Production (“RFP”),

22

Set 3. See Order, ECF 48. Judge Grewal granted the motion with respect to RFPs 5-12 and 25-28,

23

which requested writings regarding communications between Plaintiffs and Kuhn, Cuviello, and

24

another individual named Deniz Bolbol regarding the circus show at the Oracle Arena from which

25

the animals were traveling on August 13, 2012 (RFPs 5-8); regarding the circus show at the San

26

Jose Arena, to which the animals were traveling on August 13, 2012 (RFPs 9-12); and regarding

27

the incident in Milpitas on August 13, 2012 (RFPs 25-28). Judge Grewal explained on the record

28

that he believed those RFPs to be sufficiently narrow and relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims to warrant
2

1

further production. However, Judge Grewal denied Defendants’ motion to compel further

2

responses with respect to RFPs 1-4 and 17-24, which requested broader categories of writings, for

3

example, all writings between Plaintiffs and Kuhn “regarding or reflecting YOUR

4

communications with Keegan Kuhn regarding the Ringling Brothers Circus/Feld Entertainment

5

from August 1, 20102 to August 1, 2013.” (RFP 1) Judge Grewal explained on the record that

6

those categories were simply overbroad.

7

Judge Grewal also addressed on the record Plaintiffs’ claims of attorney-client and workproduct privilege regarding Plaintiffs’ communications with Cuviello. Judge Grewal ordered that

9

“Plaintiffs shall not withhold any documents on the basis of Joseph Cuviello’s mere participation

10

and/or communication with respect to any documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

work-product grounds.” Order, ECF 48. Judge Grewal ordered that attorney-client privilege and

12

work product could be claimed on other grounds, and that all documents withheld on the basis of

13

such privilege be logged in a privilege log. Id.

14

Plaintiffs request that Judge Grewal’s order be modified in two respects. First, they ask

15

that the order be modified to exclude production of video or communications regarding animal

16

care or abuse, which they claim would be irrelevant to this lawsuit. Second, they ask that this

17

Court review in camera the documents that Plaintiffs have logged in their privilege log.

18

The Court concludes that Magistrate Grewal’s rulings fall well within his discretion and

19

are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The cases cited by Plaintiffs are inapposite.

20

Accordingly, the motion for relief from Judge Grewal’s order is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall comply

21

with Judge Grewal’s order forthwith.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: October 9, 2014

_____________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3