Alvarez v. LaRose

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACINTO VICTOR ALVAREZ, JOSEPH Case No.: 20-cv-00782-DMS (AHG) BRODERICK, MARLENE CANO, JOSE

CRESPO-VENEGAS, NOE ORDER OVERRULING

GONZALEZ-SOTO, VICTOR LARA- DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO

SOTO, RACQUEL RAMCHARAN, DISCOVERY ORDER

GEORGE RIDLEY, MICHAEL JAMIL

SMITH, LEOPOLDO SZURGOT, JANE

DOE, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v.

CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior

Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents.

This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ objection to Magistrate Judge Alison Goddard’s September 18, 2020 Amended Order Resolving Joint Motion for Determination of Rule 34 Site Inspection Discovery Dispute, Granting in Part and Denying in Plaintiff Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Rule 34 Site Inspection. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the objection, and Defendants filed a reply. After reviewing these briefs, the Magistrate Judge’s Order and the relevant case law, the Court overrules Defendants’ objection. A magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive issue is reviewed by the district court under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 5 || 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In contrast, the “contrary to law” standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. See e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district court should exercise its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge’s legal conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

Defendants’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order does not establish that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Court overrules Defendants’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2021 am bby

50 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court