Allen v. Similasan Corporation et al

Filing 97

ORDER Overruling Objections. Court overrules Dfts' 89 Objections to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's 4/28/2014 Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 5/27/2014. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KIM ALLEN, LAINIE RIDEOUT,
and KATHLEEN HAIRSTON, on
behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, and the general
public,

13
14
15
16

v.

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12-cv-376-BAS(JLB)
ORDER OVERRULING
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL
28, 2014 DISCOVERY ORDER
(DOC. 89)

SIMILASAN CORPORATION,
Defendant.

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

On October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint in this action for
for statutory and common law claims related to Defendant’s line of homeopathic products.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s products do not work as advertised, are ineffective, and are
advertised in false and misleading ways. Thus far, Defendant’s motions to dismiss have been
granted, with leave to amend (Docs. 34; 57). The Court, when granting Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, prohibited filing further motions to dismiss.
(Doc. 57) Instead, Defendant is required to proceed by moving for summary judgment. (Id.)
The Third Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief. (Doc. 58, 48:16–20).
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ objection to United States Magistrate Judge
Jill L. Burkhardt’s April 28, 2014 discovery order (Doc. 89). Judge Burkhardt granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendant to produce responsive documents
-1-

12cv376

1

from March 2012 to the present. (Doc. 79, 3:13–14). Defendant erroneously relied on a

2

misinterpretation of statutes of limitation to incorrectly limit their response to Plaintiffs’

3

request. (Doc. 85, 1:11–21). Therefore Judge Burkhardt correctly granted Plaintiffs’ motion

4

to compel discovery.

5

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See

6

Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection

7

(Doc. 89).

8
9

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

10

A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within

11

fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge’s

12

order will be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; 28 U.S.C. §

13

636(b)(1)(A). The “contrary to law” standard permits independent review of purely legal

14

determinations by a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81,

15

91 (3d Cir. 1992) (“the phrase ‘contrary to law’ indicates plenary review as to matters of

16

law.”); Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff’d, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th

17

Cir. 1994); 12 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3069 (2d ed., 2010

18

update). “Thus, [the district court] must exercise its independent judgment with respect to a

19

magistrate judge’s legal conclusions.” Gandee, 785 F. Supp. at 686. “A decision is contrary

20

to law if it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.”

21

United States v. Cathcart, No. C 07-4762 PJH, 2009 WL 1764642, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 18,

22

2009).

23
24

II.

DISCUSSION

25

The crux of Defendants’ objection relies on its interpretation of statutes of limitation

26

and class certification, which are legal issues the district court independently reviews. Gandee,

27

785 F. Supp. at 686. In this case, it is Defendant who “misapplies relevant statutes [and] case

28

law.” Cathcart, 2009 WL 17642, at *2.
-2-

12cv376

1

Defendant argues that the end date for responsive discovery must be determined by the

2

“statute of limitation” period applicable to the named plaintiffs’ claims. However, statutes of

3

limitation are affirmative defenses that run from the accrual of a claim until litigation

4

commences. See Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 292 P.3d 871, 875 (Cal. 2013).

5

Generally, they do not affect discovery. Defendant’s unpersuasive analysis of In re Syntex

6

Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1996) relates to a securities fraud case in which the

7

class period closed based on a uniform event. Additionally, In re Syntex Corp. relates to

8

statutes of limitation, and Defendant cites no precedent associating statutes of limitation with

9

discovery. Here, the advertising at issue remains unchanged, potentially leaving the certifiable

10

class open. As Judge Burkhardt correctly observed, class certification is more appropriately

11

addressed at the class certification stage, not as an issue in discovery (Doc. 89, 3:25–28). The

12

prospective class in question may or may not remain open, but Defendant may not decide it as

13

a basis to deny discovery; Judge Burkhardt therefore rightly rejected limiting relevant

14

discovery based on a novel and unsupported view of statutes of limitation.

15

Defendant, in its opposition, relies on Plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief. Judge

16

Burkhardt and this Court’s orders rely on other independent grounds such that Defendant’s

17

arguments related to injunctive relief in the Third Amended Complaint are irrelevant and need

18

not be addressed here.
Accordingly, Defendants fail to show that Judge Burkhardt’s order is clearly erroneous

19
20

or contrary to law.

21

III.

22
23
24

CONCLUSION & ORDER
In light of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection to Judge

Burkhardt’s April 28, 2014 discovery order. (Doc. 89.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

DATED: May 27, 2014
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge
-3-

12cv376