Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sonicview USA, Inc. et al

Filing 109

ORDER Overruling Defendants' Objections To Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 4/6/2011. (srm)

-WVG Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sonicview USA, Inc. et al

Doc. 109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. et al. 12 13 v. 14 15 16 17 In this action for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Communications SONICVIEW USA, INC. et al., Defendants. Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv1553-L(WVG) ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 Act, Plaintiffs, who operate a satellite television system, alleged that Defendants are heavily 19 involved in the manufacture and distribution of hardware and software used to intercept and steal 20 DISH Network's encrypted satellite signal. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction has 21 been granted and Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim has been denied. The 22 parties are currently engaging in discovery. On March 4, 2011 the Magistrate Judge issued an 23 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel ("Order"). Defendants 24 filed objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) insofar as the Order compels 25 them to produce certain tax returns and information pertaining to their net worth. Plaintiffs 26 responded to the objections. For the reasons which follow, Defendants' objections are 27 OVERRULED. 28 District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited.
09cv1553

Dockets.Justia.com

1 Discovery motions, such as the motion at issue here, are non-dispositive. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(b)(1)(A); Civ. Loc. R. 72.1(b). A district court judge may reconsider a magistrate judge's 3 ruling on a non-dispositive motion only "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is 4 clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(a). 5 The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of tax returns and

6 net worth information and documents in part because in their responses to the corresponding 7 interrogatories and requests for production Defendants did not comply with Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure 26(g)(1), 33 and 34. These rules require the responding party to state its 9 objections with specificity. See also Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) 10 ("objections should be plain enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what 11 way the interrogatories are alleged to be objectionable"). Instead, Defendants used the same 12 boilerplate for each response. The generic responses were not informative as to the grounds for 13 objections as they related to Defendants and the requested information or documents. (Order at 14 6-7.) Moreover, Defendants did not correct this in their briefing before the Magistrate Judge. 15 (Id. at 7.) Defendants do not dispute this in their objections to the Order. In light of the 16 foregoing, it was not error for the Magistrate Judge to order Defendants to respond to the 17 discovery requests. See Davis, 650 F.2d at 1160-61 (imposing default judgment as sanction for 18 inadequate information in support of a claim of privilege in objections to interrogatories). 19 Because this was a sufficient ground for the Magistrate Judge to order compliance, the court 20 need not address Defendants' argument that the tax returns and net worth information were not 21 relevant or necessary in this case. 22 Defendants also contend that production of tax returns is precluded by a qualified

23 privilege based on a right to privacy under California constitution. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs 24 assert only federal claims in this case. Accordingly, federal rather than California law applies. 25 Fed. R. of Evid. 501. Under federal law, tax returns are subject to discovery. St. Regis Paper 26 Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 218 (1961). Defendants do not dispute this in their 27 objections to the Order. The court notes that discovery of tax returns is subject to a public policy 28 against unnecessary public disclosure. Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511
2
09cv1553

1 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). In this case, the policy against unnecessary public disclosure is 2 adequately addressed by means of a protective order, which was entered on August 14, 2009. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the court cannot find that the Magistrate Judge's order is

4 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Defendants' objections are OVERRULED. 5 6 7 DATED: April 6, 2011 8 9 COPY TO: 10 HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
09cv1553

IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge