Gopher Media LLC. v. Spain et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Portions of Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order (Doc. no. 50 ). Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 11/18/2020. (jmr)

Case 3:19-cv-02280-CAB-KSC Document 60 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.803 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GOPHER MEDIA LLC,

Case No.: 19-cv-2280-CAB-KSC
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE OR SET ASIDE
PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S DISCOVERY ORDER

PHILLIP SPAIN and STEVEN
MARINKOVICH,

14
15

Defendants.

[Doc. No. 50]

16
17

On August 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford issued an order on a joint

18

motion for determination of a discovery dispute concerning electronically stored

19

information (“ESI”). [Doc. No. 36.] In the order, Judge Crawford ordered Plaintiff to

20

produce cell phones, laptops, tablets, and memory storage devices in use by Plaintiff’s chief

21

executive officer, Ajay Thakore, for forensic examination. [Id. at 8.] On September 25,

22

2020, Plaintiff moved before Judge Crawford for reconsideration of her order that Plaintiff

23

produce Mr. Thakore’s devices. [Doc. No. 42.] Judge Crawford denied Plaintiff’s motion

24

for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 48.] Plaintiff now objects to Judge Crawford’s order for

25

Plaintiff to produce Mr. Thakore’s devices and moves for that aspect of Judge Crawford’s

26

order to be vacated or set aside. [Doc. No. 50.]

27

Under Rule 72(a), a party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a

28

magistrate judge within fourteen days after service of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
1
19-cv-2280-CAB-KSC

Case 3:19-cv-02280-CAB-KSC Document 60 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.804 Page 2 of 2

1

District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A

2

district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only

3

“where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary

4

to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). “The reviewing court

5

may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and

6

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

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

8

while the ‘the contrary to law’ standard applies to the magistrate judge’s legal

9

conclusions.” Yent v. Baca, No. CV-01-10672 PA(VBKX), 2002 WL 32810316, at *2

10

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2002). “[A] a magistrate [judge]’s order is ‘clearly erroneous’ if, after

11

considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction

12

that a mistake has been committed, and the order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to apply

13

or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Id. “The objecting party

14

carries the burden to show that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary

15

to law.” In re: Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., TCPA Litig., No. 11-MD-2286-MMA (MDD),

16

2020 WL 6504416, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020).

17

Here, upon review of the entire record, including Judge Crawford’s orders and the

18

parties’ briefs, the Court is not persuaded that Judge Crawford’s order requiring Plaintiff

19

to produce Mr. Thakore’s devices for forensic inspection was clearly erroneous or contrary

20

to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Crawford’s order that Plaintiff produce

21

Mr. Thakore’s devices is OVERRULED, and the motion to set aside is DENIED. Plaintiff

22

shall comply with Judge Crawford’s orders concerning the production of Mr. Thakore’s

23

devices [Doc. Nos. 36 and 48] by November 23, 2020.

24

It is SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: November 18, 2020

26
27
28
2
19-cv-2280-CAB-KSC