De Fontbrune v. Wofsy et al

Filing 174

ORDER DENYING 169 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/9/2024. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

YVES SICRE DE FONTBRUNE,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.

Case No. 5:13-cv-05957-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER

ALAN WOFSY, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 169

On January 9, 2024, Magistrate Judge Cousins (“Magistrate Judge”) issued an Order

14

(“Prior Order”) denying Defendants Alan Wofsy, et al. (“Defendants”)’s request for discovery

15

regarding the standing of Plaintiffs Vincent Sicre De Fontbrune, Loan Sicre De Fontbrune, Adel

16

Sicre De Fontbrune, and Anaïs Sicre De Fontbrune (“Plaintiffs” or “heirs”). Order on Discovery

17

Dispute (“Prior Order”), ECF No. 166. Defendants now move this Court to set aside the

18

Magistrate Judge’s Prior Order and grant its request for discovery. Pl.’s Mot. for Relief from

19

Mag. Judge Order (“Mot.”), ECF No. 169. With leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed a response on

20

January 31, 2024. Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 172.

21

A district court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge when “the

22

magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). After

23

carefully reviewing the Magistrate Judge's Prior Order and Defendants’ objections thereto, the

24

Court finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

25

The Magistrate Judge’s Prior Order found “that Defendants’ motion to compel discovery

26

from Plaintiff regarding standing and the real party in interest was not timely,” as it “was filed on

27

the eve of the pretrial conference and long after this Court denied Defendants’ motion to reopen

28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05957-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER
1

1

discovery.” Prior Order. Defendants argue that the Prior Order was clearly erroneous because the

2

Prior Order (1) ignored a statement made by Plaintiff’s representative during a settlement

3

conference that Defendants believe raise a new standing issue, and (2) failed to address the fact

4

that this statement was made in December 2023, which Defendants argue excuses the timing of

5

Defendants’ discovery request. Mot. 1.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

However, the mere fact that the Prior Order did not address these facts in its text does not

7

necessarily mean that the Magistrate Judge ignored them in clear error. Defendants’ joint

8

statement of discovery dispute informed the Magistrate Judge of these facts, and the Court has no

9

reason to believe that the Magistrate did not properly consider the record in making his ruling. See

10

Joint Statement of Disc. Dispute, ECF No. 158. The Magistrate Judge issued the Prior Order with

11

the benefit of having familiarity with the case’s significant history, including Defendants’

12

knowledge of the original Plaintiff’s passing for over eight years, Defendants’ prior discovery

13

requests on the same subject and their choice not to pursue them in the past, and other relevant

14

context. See id. at 4–5; Opp’n 2.

15

Given that Defendants’ only argument is that the Magistrate Judge failed to mention these

16

facts in the Prior Order, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to show that the Prior Order

17

was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

18
19
20
21

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s
Prior Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2024

22
23
24

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05957-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER
2