Ocampo v. United States of America et al

Filing 56

ORDER Remanding Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant to Provide an Opportunity for Another Inspection. It is Ordered: (1) Plaintiff's motion to compel is remanded to Judge Gallo to consider Plaintiff's new argument in determining whether Plaintiff's interest in inspecting the elevator platform a second time outweighs the burden to Defendant. (2) Plaintiff shall notify the Court of Judge Gallo's ruling and whether she renews her objection and motion to set aside based upon the ruling no more than seven (7) days after Judge Gallo issues his ruling. (ECF No. #47 ). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 3/6/2017. Motions set before William V. Gallo.(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ANAKAREN LOPEZ, as personal
representative of SALOMON
RODRIGUEZ,

13
14
15
16

Case No.: 15cv00180 JAH-WVG
ORDER REMANDING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER
COMPELLING DEFENDANT TO
PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
ANOTHER INSPECTION
[Doc. No. 47]

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.
Defendants.

17
18

AND RELATED CROSS CLAIM.

19
20
21

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the magistrate judge’s

22

September 30, 2016 order denying her request for a second inspection. Defendant opposes

23

Plaintiff’s motion. Upon a thorough review of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds it

24

appropriate to remand Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant to provide

25

Plaintiff another opportunity to inspect the subject elevator platform at the flight deck level.

26

BACKGROUND

27

On January 27, 2015, Damaris Manzanero Vazquez, appearing as the personal

28

representative of Salomon Rodriguez, filed a complaint against United States of America
1
15cv00180 JAH-WVG

1

and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (“NASSCO”). On November 23, 2015,

2

Anakaren Lopez, appearing as the personal representative of Salomon Rodriguez, filed a

3

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), seeking damages for negligence. Plaintiff Lopez

4

alleges Defendants’ negligence caused Salomon Rodriguez to fall off the unguarded side

5

of an elevator platform approximately 98 feet down an elevator trunk while working aboard

6

the USS Boxer in navigable waters at Pier 13, Naval Station, San Diego, California. FAC

7

¶¶ 11 - 21. Plaintiff asserts, as the decedent’s personal representative, she is entitled to

8

recover on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez’s minor son. Id. ¶ 26.

9
10

Defendant United States filed an answer and cross claim against Defendant
NASSCO, and NASSCO filed an answer to the FAC and an answer to the crossclaim.

11

Plaintiff’s counsel and experts were given the opportunity to inspect the elevator at

12

issue. Plaintiff served a second request to inspect the elevator and Defendant United States

13

objected. The Honorable William Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge, conducted a

14

telephonic discovery conference and directed the parties to file a joint statement with their

15

respective position.

16

Plaintiff’s request to inspect the elevator a second time.

On September 30, 2016, Judge Gallo issued an order denying

17

Plaintiff objects to Judge Gallo’s order and seeks an order setting aside the

18

September 30, 2016 order and compelling Defendant to provide Plaintiff the opportunity

19

to inspect the subject elevator platform at the flight deck level as it was on the day Mr.

20

Rodriguez fell to his death and to observe the aft door open and the aft ramp deployed to

21

determine whether such a configuration could have prevented the tragedy.

22

STANDARD OF REVIEW

23

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

24

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

25

determination of such matters is entitled to deference unless it is clearly erroneous or

26

contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

27

The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual

28

determinations and discretionary decisions. Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco,
2
15cv00180 JAH-WVG

1

951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discretionary non-dispositive pre-trial matters by

2

magistrate judge are reviewable for clear error); Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746,

3

748 (9th Cir. 1990) (factual determinations made in connection with sanction award are

4

reviewable for clear error). This standard requires “a definite and firm conviction that a

5

mistake has been committed.” Security Farms v. Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d

6

999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997).

7

The “contrary to law” standard applies to review of purely legal determinations by

8

a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)

9

(“the phrase ‘contrary to law’ indicates plenary review as to matters of law.”); Medical

10

Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D.Cal. 1996)

11

(“Section 636(b)(1). . .has been interpreted to provide for de novo review by the district

12

court on issues of law). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies

13

relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767

14

F.Supp.2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (citing DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159,

15

163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)).

16
17

DISCUSSION
A. Judge Gallo’s Order

18

The parties submitted a joint statement for determination of the discovery dispute to

19

Judge Gallo. The United States objected to the second inspection on the ground the request

20

was unreasonably cumulative, duplicative and the information sought could be obtained

21

from another, more convenient, less burdensome source. Defendant maintained Plaintiff

22

previously inspected the elevator at a safe level, possessed photographs of the elevator

23

taken on the day of the incident and detailed drawings and measurements of how it existed

24

on the day of the incident, and possessed blueprints and operational, maintenance and

25

safety instructions for the elevator. Defendant also maintained Plaintiff’s request was

26

unduly burdensome because it would require a significant amount of manpower and the

27

need to employ and pay a contractor to install fall protection.

28
3
15cv00180 JAH-WVG

1

Plaintiff argued the second inspection was necessary for her to prove a critical theory

2

of liability. Plaintiff’s theory is the decedent’s fall was caused by the gap between the

3

elevator platform and the flight deck as it was configured 98 feet above ground, and she

4

argued, the only way to know whether the configuration caused the tragedy was to “1)

5

measure the gap space for themselves; 2) see what visual cues the decedent saw while on

6

the platform that would have indicated to him his proximity to the ledge; and 3) determine

7

whether fall arrested systems were feasible at that height given the platform’s proximity to

8

other objects at that deck level.” Joint Statement (Doc. No. 40) at 8. She further argued

9

the importance of inspecting the platform as it was on the date of the incident outweighed

10

any burden to Defendant. She asserted any burden was minimal because Navy personnel

11

would not be inconvenienced from more than an hour and the cost would be minimal given

12

the Navy’s operating budget.

13

Judge Gallo found Defendant would suffer a certain degree of burden but not so

14

great as to preclude Plaintiff’s request outright. Addressing each of Plaintiff’s three

15

reasons for the request, Judge Gallo also found Plaintiff made a minimal showing of need,

16

if any, to inspect the elevator platform a second time in the raised position. Judge Gallo

17

then applied the balancing test of Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., 588 F.2d

18

904 (4th Cir. 1978), and determined the burden imposed on Defendant outweighs

19

Plaintiff’s stated interest in inspecting the elevator platform a second time.

20

B. Plaintiff’s Objection

21

Plaintiff maintains she was denied access to all relevant parts of the elevator during

22

the first inspection. Specifically, she alleges there is an aft door on the elevator shaft at the

23

flight deck level, and when the aft door is opened a ramp lowers down which Plaintiff

24

believes would have covered the opening through which Mr. Rodriguez fell to his death.

25

She contends counsel and his experts were given an opportunity to inspect the elevator on

26

January 27, 2016, but on a rush basis and were only permitted to inspect the elevator at the

27

bottom of the shaft. She further contends they were not permitted to inspect the platform

28

or the aft ramp at the flight deck level, the aft door and aft ramp of cargo weapons elevator
4
15cv00180 JAH-WVG

1

no. 3 on the USS BOXER at the flight deck level. Additionally, she maintains they have

2

not been provided equivalent photographs, and have never been allowed to inspect the hole

3

through which Mr. Rodriguez fell. Plaintiff maintains the failure to lower the ramp is

4

critical to how the accident occurred and critical to Plaintiff’s liability arguments.

5

Plaintiff argues Judge Gallo’s order denying the inspection is clearly erroneous

6

because it misses one of Plaintiff’s material purposes for the inspection, to determine

7

whether or not the aft door, which exists only at the flight deck level, when open and

8

deploying its aft ramp, would have, with the aft ramp, sufficiently covered the opening

9

through which Mr. Rodriguez fell to his death and thereby prevented his death. She

10

maintains determining whether Defendants could have taken reasonable steps, such as

11

lowering the aft ramp to save Mr. Rodriguez’s life, is the whole reason for this litigation

12

and refusing her counsel access to the aft ramp will have the effect of reducing her case to

13

speculation. She argues Judge Gallo’s ruling is clearly erroneous because it fails to

14

contemplate that this inspection could determine whether or not opening the aft door at the

15

flight deck level and lowering the aft ramp could have covered the hole sufficiently to

16

prevent the decedent from falling to his death.

17

Plaintiff further argues the order is contrary to law because it fails to liberally

18

construe discovery requests and balance relative interests as mandated by the Federal Rules

19

of Civil Procedure.

20
21

In opposition, Defendant agues the Court should ignore Plaintiff’s new argument
raised for the first time in objection and deny Plaintiff’s motion on that basis.

22

Defendant further argues, even if the Court considers the merits of Plaintiff’s

23

objection, Judge Gallo’s order is neither erroneous nor contrary to law because Judge Gallo

24

did not misapply the applicable discovery statute or relevant case law.

25

maintains it allowed Plaintiff’s counsel and experts to thoroughly inspect, measure and

26

photograph the subject elevator platform while it was at a safer level. Additionally,

27

Defendant maintains it provided Plaintiff with diagrams, measurements, and photographs

28

of the elevator as it was on the day of the incident. Defendant contends Judge Gallo applied

Defendant

5
15cv00180 JAH-WVG

1

the applicable discovery statutes and relevant case law and determined Plaintiff did not

2

make a minimal showing of need to inspect the elevator platform a second time at the flight

3

deck level.

4

outweighed Plaintiff’s stated interest in conducting a second inspection was not erroneous

5

nor contrary to law.

Defendant argues Judge Gallo’s finding that the United States’ burden

6

In reply, Plaintiff contends a district court has full discretion to consider arguments

7

made for the first time in a parties’ objection to a magistrate judge’s decision. She further

8

contends the arguments made before Judge Gallo and before this Court are similarly

9

intertwined because both are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. She

10

argues finding out whether the death could have been prevented if the government

11

deployed the aft ramp, could make a material difference in the outcome of this case. She

12

maintains the first inspection of the site was a “take it or leave it” inspection at the spur of

13

the moment, and argues the government should not act surprised and indignant when an

14

inspection under these circumstances is not good enough to provide the Plaintiff with the

15

discovery she is entitled to under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff contends

16

the argument offered to this Court, although not previously made before Judge Gallo is not

17

so different as to be considered “out of left field” and, is potentially material to the outcome

18

of a case that is itself of the utmost importance. Therefore, she argues, this Court may

19

exercise its discretion to hear this new argument favoring the first inspection of the elevator

20

platform at the flight deck level.

21

Plaintiff further argues she makes a clear showing that one key theory of liability

22

can be proven based on the evidence gathered at a second site inspection conducted

23

properly.

24

C. Analysis

25

Plaintiff raises a new argument in support of her request for a second inspect that

26

she did not raise before Judge Gallo. This Court has the discretion to consider Plaintiff’s

27

new argument raised for the first time in her objection. See United States v. Howell, 231

28

F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the Court finds it inappropriate to determine
6
15cv00180 JAH-WVG

1

whether Judge Gallo’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel was clearly erroneous

2

or contrary to law when Judge Gallo was not provided an opportunity to address the new

3

argument raised by Plaintiff. The Court, notwithstanding, declines to deny the motion on

4

that basis and will, instead, remand the issue to provide Judge Gallo an opportunity to

5

address the new argument.

6

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

8

1.

9
10
11

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is remanded to Judge Gallo to consider Plaintiff’s

new argument in determining whether Plaintiff’s interest in inspecting the elevator
platform a second time outweighs the burden to Defendant.
2.

Plaintiff shall notify the Court of Judge Gallo’s ruling and whether she renews

12

her objection and motion to set aside based upon the ruling no more than seven (7) days

13

after Judge Gallo issues his ruling.

14

DATED:

15
16
17

March 6, 2017
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
15cv00180 JAH-WVG