American Fireglass v. Moderustic Inc.
Filing
143
ORDER overruling Defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge's discovery order. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/11/2019.(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
AMERICAN FIREGLASS, a California
corporation,
15
ORDER OVERRULING
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
DISCOVERY ORDER
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS)
v.
MODERUSTIC INC., a California
corporation,
16
(ECF No. 128)
Defendant.
17
18
Presently before the Court is Defendant Moderustic, Inc.’s Objections to Magistrate
19
Judge Bernard Skomal’s January 23, 2018 Order, which granted in part and denied in part
20
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (“Objections,” ECF No. 124). Also before the
21
court is Plaintiff American Fireglass’ Response in Opposition to, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 126),
22
and Defendant’s Reply in Support of, (“Reply,” ECF No. 133), the Objections. Having
23
considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s
24
Objections.
25
District courts “must consider timely objections” to a magistrate’s ruling and “set
26
aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
27
72(a); see also Grimes v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). A
28
ruling is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court, on the entire record, reaches “a
1
15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS)
1
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S.
2
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Carl Zeiss Vision Int’l GmbH v. Signet Armorlite,
3
Inc., No. 07-CV-894 DMS (DHB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12392 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12,
4
2010). In contrast, the “contrary to law” standard permits independent review of purely
5
legal determinations by a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Grp., Inc., 975
6
F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Med. Imaging Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F. Supp.
7
717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996).
8
Defendant raises four objections, none of which establish Magistrate Judge
9
Skomal’s rulings were either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. First, Judge Skomal’s
10
decision to order Plaintiff to supplement its discovery responses, but not reopen discovery
11
related to methods used by Plaintiff to produce the accused products, is supported by the
12
record and not clearly erroneous. Second, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF
13
No. 86, supports Judge Skomal’s finding that Defendant failed to comply with Judge
14
Skomal’s chambers rules and his decision to deny a premise inspection on that basis is not
15
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Third, Defendant’s Objections concerning discovery
16
related to damages is premature. Judge Skomal has yet to rule on the scope of discovery
17
related to damages, instead finding it more efficient to defer his ruling on the issue until
18
after this Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross Motions for Summary Judgment, see ECF No.
19
110; the Court finds no reason to rule on Objections to a ruling Judge Skomal has yet to
20
make. Fourth, and finally, Judge Skomal addressed all of the issues raised in Defendant’s
21
Motion to Compel, and this Court will not address issues not presented first to Judge
22
Skomal. Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant’s Objections to the Magistrate
23
Judge’s Order.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2019
26
27
28
2
15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS)
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?