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)