Gopher Media LLC. v. Spain

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOPHER MEDIA LLC, Case No.: 19-cv-2280-CAB-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. VACATE OR SET ASIDE PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE PHILLIP SPAIN and STEVEN JUDGE’S DISCOVERY ORDER MARINKOVICH, Defendants.

15 [Doc. No. 50] 17 On August 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford issued an order on a joint motion for determination of a discovery dispute concerning electronically stored information (“ESI”). [Doc. No. 36.] In the order, Judge Crawford ordered Plaintiff to produce cell phones, laptops, tablets, and memory storage devices in use by Plaintiff’s chief executive officer, Ajay Thakore, for forensic examination. [Id. at 8.] On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff moved before Judge Crawford for reconsideration of her order that Plaintiff produce Mr. Thakore’s devices. [Doc. No. 42.] Judge Crawford denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 48.] Plaintiff now objects to Judge Crawford’s order for Plaintiff to produce Mr. Thakore’s devices and moves for that aspect of Judge Crawford’s 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 magistrate judge within fourteen days after service of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

1 || District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A || district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only || ““where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary ||to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The reviewing court ||may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and || 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 ||while the ‘the contrary to law’ standard applies to the magistrate judge’s legal ||conclusions.” Yent v. Baca, No. CV-01-10672 PA(VBKX), 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 }|(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 || that a mistake has been committed, and the order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to apply || or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Id. “The objecting party || carries the burden to show that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary 15 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 || parties’ briefs, the Court is not persuaded that Judge Crawford’s order requiring Plaintiff || to produce Mr. Thakore’s devices for forensic inspection was clearly erroneous or contrary 20 law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection to Judge Crawford’s order that Plaintiff produce || Mr. Thakore’s devices is OVERRULED, and the motion to set aside is DENIED. Plaintiff ||shall comply with Judge Crawford’s orders concerning the production of Mr. Thakore’s ||devices [Doc. Nos. 36 and 48] by November 23, 2020.

24 It is SO ORDERED.

25 ||Dated: November 18, 2020 26 Y g 28 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge