Brady et al v. Grendene USA, Inc.

Filing 355

ORDER Overruling Defendants' 240 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Orders Denying Defendants' Request to Compel Compliance with Protective Order Filed April 23, 2015. Judge Crawford's Orders, (ECF Nos. 222, 223), are affirmed. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/21/15.(dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 JAMES W. BRADY and PATRICIA M. BRADY, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) GRENDENE USA, INC., a Delaware ) Corporation, and GRENDENE S.A., a ) Brazil corporation, ) ) Defendants. Case No. 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED APRIL 23, 2015 (ECF NO. 240) 18 INTRODUCTION 19 20 Currently before the Court are defendants Grendene USA, Inc. and Grendene 21 S.A.’s (together, “Defendants”) objections to Magistrate Judge Crawford’s April 23, 22 2015, orders denying Defendants’ Request to Compel Compliance with the Protective 23 Order, (ECF No. 161), and denying in part Defendants’ Alternative Request for Relief 24 that Plaintiffs’ Counsel be Compelled to Testify Regarding Confidentiality 25 Designations, (ECF No. 162). (ECF Nos. 222, 223.)1 After a careful consideration of 26 the parties’ submissions, the record in this matter, the applicable law, and for the 27 reasons that follow, the Court will OVERRULE Defendants’ Objections. 28 1 The page numbers listed reference the specific document, rather than the ECF, page number. 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint for trademark infringement on March 9, 3 2012, and their currently operative First Amended Complaint on March 16, 2012. 4 (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants make, promote, and sell beach 5 sandals and related goods under the name “Ipanema,” infringing on Plaintiffs’ 6 “Ipanema” and “The Girl from Ipanema” trademarks, in an effort “to cause mistake or 7 deception as to the source of Defendants’ products, and/or to otherwise trade upon 8 Plaintiffs’ reputation and customer goodwill in their marks.” (ECF No. 4, at 3-4.) 9 On September 27, 2012, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued, at the parties’ joint 10 request, an initial protective order governing discovery in this matter, (the “Protective 11 Order). (ECF No. 38.) The Protective Order provides two designations, “Confidential” 12 and “Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only (AEO),” and requires that “[d]esignations 13 under the Order shall be made with care and shall not be made absent a good faith 14 belief that the designated material satisfies the [applicable] criteria.” (Id. at 2.) The 15 Protective Order further requires that a party challenging such designations must meet 16 and confer with the producing party in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. (Id. 17 at 10.) If no agreement is reached, the objecting party may bring a joint motion to the 18 Court specifying the particular material it believes is improperly designated. (Id. at 10- 19 11.) Any disputes over a party’s confidentiality designations are required to be 20 presented to the Court in the following format: “(1) the specific pages in the dispute; 21 (2) the producing party’s statement in support of the designations; and (3) the 22 challenging party’s statement as to why the documents should not be designated 23 confidential.” (ECF No. 222, at 3.) 24 In the present case, Plaintiffs made three substantial productions totaling over 25 35,000 pages of documents. (ECF No. 161, at 5.) On February 3, 2014, Plaintiffs 26 served their initial disclosures. (ECF No. 74-2, at 8.) On May 9, 2014, Plaintiffs 27 produced a disc containing 20,863 pages of documents, approximately 19,000 to 28 20,000 of which were marked “AEO.” (ECF No. 161, at 6.) On May 14, 2014, 2 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 Plaintiffs produced a second disc, containing an additional 896 pages of documents, 2 875 of which were designated “Confidential” or “AEO.” (Id.) On or about May 20, 3 2014, Plaintiffs made available ten boxes, eight of which were marked “AEO” with a 4 single post-it note, for copying and inspection. (Id.) These boxes contained 16,152 5 pages of documents, 15,776 of which were marked “AEO.” (Id.) Thus, the vast 6 majority of documents produced were designated “Confidential” or “AEO.” (Id. at 1.) 7 On June 11, 2014, Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs’ confidentiality 8 designations were overbroad, and requested to compel Plaintiffs to re-review their 9 document productions and remove any improper designations. (ECF No. 74.) 10 Subsequently, in an order dated September 26, 2014, Judge Crawford denied 11 Defendants’ request for their failure to comply with the Protective Order’s procedure 12 for challenging confidentiality designations. (ECF No. 138, at 17-18.) Judge Crawford 13 further instructed the parties to comply with this procedure in all future requests. (Id.) 14 On October 9, 2014, Defendants served Plaintiffs’ law firm with a subpoena to 15 testify at a deposition scheduled for October 20, 2014, concerning Plaintiffs’ 16 confidentiality designations. (ECF No. 161-1, Ex. B.) On October 17, 2014, Plaintiffs 17 submitted their opposition to the deposition and refused to produce a witness to testify. 18 (Id., Ex. C.) On October 22, 2014, defense counsel sent an email to Plaintiffs’ counsel 19 listing by Bates number approximately 5,000 pages that the Defendants believed were 20 improperly designated. (ECF No. 163-3, Ex. 2.) On October 27, 2014, the parties met 21 and conferred telephonically about the dispute. (ECF No. 161, at 9.) On November 7, 22 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent defense counsel a forty-four page list of documents for 23 which Plaintiffs were removing or modifying the confidentiality designation. (ECF No. 24 163-5.) 25 However, Defendants continued to dispute Plaintiffs’ initial designations, 26 claiming that Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to satisfy their obligation to review the 27 documents in good faith, and instead made wholesale, “blanket” designations applying 28 to all documents. (ECF No. 161, at 18.) Defendants further claimed that Plaintiffs’ 3 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 counsel made statements disclaiming the obligation to make a good faith effort to 2 properly designate each document. (Id. at 17-18.) In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel 3 asserted they acted in good faith in designating documents as “Confidential” or “AEO,” 4 and had twice reviewed the 5,000 documents challenged by Defendants. (Id. at 25.) 5 Plaintiffs’ counsel further denied any disclaimer of their obligation to review and 6 designate each document in good faith. (Id. at 12-13.) 7 As the dispute remained unresolved, on November 13, 2014, Defendants filed 8 a Joint Motion to Request to Compel Compliance with the Protective Order, (ECF No. 9 161), and, in the alternative, a Request for Relief that Plaintiffs’ Counsel be Compelled 10 to Testify Regarding Confidentiality Designations, (ECF No. 162). On April 23, 2015, 11 Judge Crawford ruled that Plaintiffs’ counsel had made their confidentiality 12 designations “with care” and in “good faith” in compliance with the Protective Order, 13 and denied Defendants’ Request to Compel Compliance. (ECF No. 222.) In so ruling, 14 Judge Crawford noted that Defendants failed both to comply with the Protective 15 Order’s designation challenge procedure, requiring a list of specifically disputed 16 documents, and to present sufficient evidence of Plaintiffs’ failure to designate 17 documents in compliance with the Protective Order. (Id. at 4, 6.) Absent such a 18 showing, Judge Crawford presumed Defendants’ challenges were resolved by 19 Plaintiffs’ subsequently produced forty-four page list of corrections, and further, 20 accepted representations in the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel that the 21 confidentiality designations were made with care and in good faith. (Id. at 3.) 22 Further, on April 23, 2015, Judge Crawford also denied Defendants’ alternative 23 request to compel testimony regarding Plaintiffs’ confidentiality designations, finding 24 such testimony was neither necessary nor appropriate. (ECF No. 223, at 1, 3.) In so 25 ruling, Judge Crawford again noted Defendants’ failure to comply with the procedure 26 for challenging confidentiality designations set forth in the Protective Order, and stated 27 that “noticing a deposition of designating counsel is not an appropriate means of 28 addressing this issue.” (ECF No. 223, at 4.) As such, Defendants’ request to compel 4 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 testimony and request for associated attorney’s fees were also denied. (Id.) 2 On May 6, 2015, Defendants filed objections to both of Judge Crawford’s orders 3 denying Defendants’ requests to compel compliance with the Protective Order. (ECF 4 No. 240.) On May 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ objections. 5 (ECF No. 279.) On June 5, 2015, Defendants filed a reply in support of their 6 objections. (ECF No. 299.) STANDARD OF REVIEW 7 8 A party may file objections to a non-dispositive pretrial order issued by a 9 magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the order. Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 72(a). “A non-dispositive order entered by a magistrate must be deferred to 11 unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San 12 Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 13 § 636(b)(1)(A)). A ruling is clearly erroneous where the reviewing court is left with 14 “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” a standard highly 15 deferential to the magistrate judge’s ruling. Concrete Pipe & Prod. v. Constr. Laborers 16 Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). However, the district judge may decline to 17 consider evidence that was not presented to the magistrate judge. See Haines v. Ligett 18 Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92-93 (3d Cir. 1992); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 19 v. CPT Med. Servs., P.C., 375 F. Supp. 2d 141, 158 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). DISCUSSION 20 21 Defendants make the following objections to Judge Crawford’s April 23, 2015, 22 orders, denying both Defendants’ request to compel compliance with the Protective 23 Order, and alternative request to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to testify regarding 24 Plaintiffs’ confidentiality designations, (ECF No. 240): 25 1. designate documents as required by the Protective Order; 26 27 28 Judge Crawford ignored facts that clearly evidenced Plaintiffs’ failure to 2. Judge Crawford ignored that Plaintiffs made “blanket protections” in violation of the Protective Order; 5 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 3. Judge Crawford ignored that proper initial designation is required by law; 2 4. Judge Crawford improperly concluded that compliance with the Protective Order’s procedure for designating documents cannot be compelled; 3 5. 4 Judge Crawford improperly extended the presumption of attorney 5 truthfulness to the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, but not to the 6 Declaration of Defendants’ counsel; 6. 7 Judge Crawford improperly attached an irrebuttable presumption of accuracy to the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel; and 8 7. 9 Judge Crawford improperly concluded that certain remedies Defendants 10 sought were barred by law and rejected other remedies Defendants sought 11 without explanation. 12 13 1. Judge Crawford’s Finding that Plaintiffs’ made Their Initial Designations in Compliance with the Protective Order was not “Clearly Erroneous” 14 Defendants argue that Judge Crawford erred in accepting the truthfulness of the 15 Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, stating that all documents were designated in 16 compliance with the Protective Order, despite evidence presented by Defendants that 17 Plaintiffs had imposed inaccurate, “blanket protections” on a large volume of 18 documents. (ECF No. 240, at 5-6.) 19 In support of their requests, Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs designated the 20 majority of 35,000 documents “Confidential” or “AEO,” designating several boxes of 21 documents with a single post-it note, and further, produced a forty-four page list of 22 corrections after re-reviewing only 5,000 challenged pages. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendants 23 also submitted the following documents in support of their requests: (1) designated 24 portions of Mr. Brady’s deposition, concerning business information related to “Made 25 in Brazil” and Mr. Brady’s involvement in making the designations; (2) Defendants’ 26 subpoena of Plaintiffs’ counsel; (3) email exchanges regarding the parties’ “meet and 27 confer”; Plaintiffs’ list of de-designated documents; and (4) a letter from Plaintiffs’ 28 counsel regarding the confidentiality of large portions of Mr. Brady’s deposition. (ECF 6 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 Nos. 161, 162.) Lastly, in support of their present objection, Defendants submitted 2 additional evidence, including designated portions of the depositions of Patricia Maria 3 Duhart Martins Brady, James Brady, and Patricia Brady, and several documents that 4 Defendants allege were improperly designated. (ECF No. 240.) 5 Defendants argue that, had Judge Crawford properly weighed the evidence 6 presented, Plaintiffs would not have been found in compliance with the Protective 7 Order, having made “blanket protections” neither with care, nor in good faith. (ECF 8 No. 240, at 5-6.) Defendants further argue that in failing to adequately consider this 9 evidence, Judge Crawford improperly extended an irrebuttable presumption of attorney 10 truthfulness to the allegedly vague, conclusory, and hearsay Declaration of Plaintiffs’ 11 counsel, but not to the allegedly highly detailed Declaration of Defendants’ counsel 12 made on personal knowledge. (Id. at 3.) Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ counsel failed 13 to provide any facts concerning how documents were designated or by whom. (Id.) 14 Defendants assert that, in contrast, Defendants’ counsel contradicted Plaintiffs’ counsel 15 in numerous respects, quoting admissions by Plaintiffs’ counsel of their disregard for 16 the initial designation requirements of the Protective Order, and presenting over 10,000 17 documents that did not meet the standards for designation. (Id.) Defendants also note 18 that Judge Crawford incorrectly stated that Plaintiffs had reviewed all documents twice, 19 when in fact, they had only reviewed 5,000 of the 35,000 documents twice, which 20 resulted in a forty-four page list of corrections. (Id. at 4.)2 Lastly, Defendants note that 21 Plaintiffs, in their reply, do not deny that their documents were designated as described 22 by Defendants, but rather, “fall back on their counsel’s conclusory assertion that the 23 designations nonetheless were made in good faith.” (ECF No. 299, at 3-4.) 24 In response, Plaintiffs assert they have already demonstrated that they designated 25 documents with care and in good faith. (See ECF No. 279, at 8.) Additionally, Plaintiffs 26 claim that the boxes, marked with a post-it note as “AEO,” were reviewed by counsel, 27 and further, that other disputed documents were either de-designated, or properly 28 2 The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ brief was unclear as to which documents were reviewed twice. (See ECF No. 161, at 12, 21.) 7 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 justified. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiffs assert that they previously briefed and argued their 2 reasons for designating the challenged documents, and further, that Judge Crawford did 3 not view Defendants’ evidence as demonstrative of the Brady’s failure to conduct a 4 proper confidentiality review. (Id. at 8.) Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Judge Crawford 5 correctly credited counsel’s declaration and that her findings with respect to Plaintiffs’ 6 confidentiality designations should be dispositive. (Id.) 7 After review, the Court finds that Judge Crawford’s finding that Plaintiffs’ 8 counsel made designations with care, and in good faith, was not clearly erroneous. As 9 an initial matter, the Court declines to consider the additional evidence submitted in 10 support of Defendants’ present opposition because this evidence was not presented in 11 support of Defendants’ initial requests to Judge Crawford. See Haines, 975 F.2d at 92- 12 93. If Defendants’ had access to this evidence when submitting their initial requests, 13 as it appears they did, such evidence should have been submitted at that time. 14 Second , the Court finds evidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel not only designated the 15 majority of 35,000 documents, but also produced a large list of corrections after 16 conducting a second review, insufficient to demonstrate “clear error.” The Court 17 acknowledges that several courts have found that a party’s de-designation of a large 18 percentage of documents indicates a failure to have initially designated documents in 19 good faith. See Humphreys v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. C-04-03808-SI-EDL, 20 2006 WL 3020902 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006) (finding “Defendants’ designations 21 were not [made] in good faith as more than 25% of the documents and all of the 22 computer data were de-designated at a meet and confer session); In re ULLICO Inc. 23 Litigation, 237 F.R.D. 314, 318 (D. of Col. 2006) (finding, after defendants’ re- 24 designation of approximately 4,000 documents, that “such a sweeping correction 25 subsequent to [defendants’] initial production illustrates that [defendants’] non- 26 compliance with the Protective Order occurred on a grand scale”). 27 Here, Defendants state, and Plaintiffs do not deny, that approximately 33,000 of 28 35,000, or approximately ninety-four percent of the documents, were designated 8 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 “Confidential” or “AEO.” Further, after re-reviewing only 5,000 challenged documents, 2 Plaintiffs produced a forty-four page list of corrections. Thus, it appears Plaintiffs not 3 only designated a high percentage of documents, but also improperly designated 4 several documents. However, while this evidence supports the inference that Plaintiffs’ 5 counsel failed to make their initial designations in good faith, the Court finds this 6 evidence is insufficient to establish a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake [was] 7 committed” by Judge Crawford in weighing this evidence against the Declaration of 8 Plaintiffs’ counsel. Concrete Pipe & Prod., 508 U.S. at 623. Accordingly, the Court 9 finds Judge Crawford’s review of this evidence was not clearly erroneous. 10 Lastly, the Court finds that evidence submitted by Defendant, including portions 11 of James Brady’s deposition, email exchanges between the parties, Plaintiffs’ list of de- 12 designated documents, and Defendants’ subpoena of Plaintiffs’ counsel, is also 13 insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Protective Order in 14 designating documents. Defendants primarily submit large, “AEO” designated, portions 15 of Mr. Brady’s deposition as exemplary of Plaintiffs’ use of “blanket protections” and 16 failure to designate documents with care, and in good faith. However, despite the large 17 number of pages designated, the information concerns business information, related to 18 “Made in Brazil”, that is properly designated under the Protective Order, as well as 19 information validly protected as attorney work product, or under the attorney-client 20 privilege. See (ECF No. 38, at 7-8); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 26(b)(3)(A). Therefore, 21 the Court finds Judge Crawford’s review of this evidence was not clearly erroneous. 22 In sum, for the reasons discussed, the Court finds that Judge Crawford’s 23 determination that Defendants’ evidence was insufficient to outweigh the Declaration 24 of Plaintiffs’ counsel was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Defendants’ objections 25 to these findings are OVERRULED. 26 // 27 // 28 // 9 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 2. Judge Crawford’s Refusal to Compel Plaintiffs’ Compliance with the Protective 2 Order was not “Clearly Erroneous” 3 Defendants argue Judge Crawford ignored that proper initial designation is 4 required by law and improperly concluded that compliance with the Protective Order’s 5 procedures for designating documents cannot be compelled. (ECF No. 240, at 1-2.) 6 Defendants have repeatedly been ordered, and have often failed, to comply with the 7 Protective Order’s procedure for challenging confidentiality designations. (See ECF No. 8 222, at 6.) This procedure requires the objecting party to make a written challenge to 9 specific designations, and to meet and confer with the designating party concerning the 10 dispute. (ECF No. 38, ¶ 11.) If an agreement cannot be reached, the party may then 11 make a motion challenging the disputed designations and must make specific challenges 12 to each individual document. (Id.) 13 However, Defendants argue that, although there is a “means to challenge the 14 result of the application of the document designation process, it provides no means to 15 challenge whether the process itself was actually followed.” (ECF No. 240, at 2.) 16 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to make their initial designations with care and 17 in good faith, and have disclaimed their obligation to do so. (ECF No. 161, at 7-8). As 18 such, Defendants assert that requiring Defendants to make written, individual challenges 19 to a large volume of designated documents “unfairly and inappropriately shifts the 20 burden to the receiving party to make the initial good faith determination whether the 21 documents designated meet the requirements for designation.” (ECF No. 240, at 2.) 22 In response, Plaintiffs assert, and Judge Crawford has so found, that Plaintiffs 23 demonstrated good cause for their confidentiality designations in compliance with the 24 First Amendment and the common law. (ECF No. 279, at 8.) Plaintiffs further deny any 25 disclaimer of their obligations under the Protective Order. (ECF No. 161, at 12-13.) 26 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ interpretation “has no support whatsoever in the 27 stipulated Protective Order, and that Judge Crawford properly rejected it.” (ECF No. 28 279, at 10.) Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have a remedy in the challenge 10 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 procedure provided in the Protective Order and were properly required to comply. (Id.) 2 After review, the Court notes that Judge Crawford’s orders improperly 3 characterize the parties Joint Motion as seeking to dispute and change Plaintiffs’ chosen 4 designations. Consequently, the Court finds Judge Crawford placed an incorrect 5 emphasis on Defendants’ failure to comply with the challenge procedure provided in the 6 Protective Order. (See ECF No. 38, at ¶ 11.). While Defendants would be required to 7 follow the challenge procedure if they sought to change or dispute Plaintiffs’ chosen 8 designations, they are not required to follow it if, as is the case here, they only seek to 9 compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with the Protective Order in making their initial 10 designations. “The duty of good faith in the protective order is a duty to review the 11 documents in good faith before designating them as [‘Confidential’] or ‘Attorney’s Eyes 12 Only.’” Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Techs., LLC, 248 F.R.D. 598, 605 (D. Kan. 13 2008). Thus, if Plaintiffs fail to meet their initial burden to designate documents with 14 care, and in good faith, by over-designating documents, it would be improper to shift 15 this burden to Defendants by requiring them to challenge to each specific document. See 16 Humphreys, 2006 WL 3020902, at *2. Accordingly, as similarly requested by 17 Defendants, several courts addressing this situation have compelled compliance with 18 the Protective Order by the designating party and imposed sanctions. See id.; Paradigm 19 Alliance, Inc., 248 FRD at 605; In re ULLICO Inc. Litigation, 237 F.R.D. at 318. 20 However, although Defendants’ properly challenged Plaintiffs’ counsel’s initial 21 designation procedure by submitting their request to compel compliance, Judge 22 Crawford validly found that Plaintiffs had in fact designated documents with care, and 23 in good faith. Therefore, as Plaintiffs were found to have satisfied their initial burden 24 in making their designations, there was no need to compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with 25 the Protective Order and Defendants were properly directed to follow the challenge 26 procedure. Accordingly, the Court finds no “clear error” in Judge Crawford’s refusal 27 to compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with the Protective Order in making their initial 28 designations, and Defendants’ objections to this finding are OVERRULED. 11 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC 1 3. Judge Crawford’s Refusal to Compel Plaintiffs’ Testimony Regarding 2 Confidentiality Designations was not “Clearly Erroneous” 3 Defendants alternatively requested that the lawyers who designated Plaintiffs’ 4 documents be required to testify as to their compliance with the Protective Order’s 5 procedure and standard for making confidentiality designations. (ECF No. 240, at 7.) 6 Defendants argue that in denying this request, Judge Crawford improperly concluded 7 that their requested questions would intrude on attorney work product and information 8 protected by attorney client privilege or the Protective Order. (Id. at 9-10.) 9 After review, the Court finds Judge Crawford’s denial of Defendants’ requested 10 remedies was not clearly erroneous. Again, Judge Crawford properly ruled that 11 Plaintiffs had designated documents in compliance with the Protective Order. As such, 12 there was no need to permit further inquiry concerning Plaintiffs’ confidentiality 13 designations. Therefore, Defendants’ objections to Judge Crawford’s denial of their 14 alternative requests to compel testimony concerning Plaintiffs’ confidentiality 15 designations are OVERRULED. CONCLUSION & ORDER 16 17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Defendants’ objections, (ECF No. 240), are OVERRULED; and 19 2. Judge Crawford’s Orders, (ECF Nos. 222, 223), are AFFIRMED. 20 21 DATED: August 21, 2015 22 23 24 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 12 12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?