Opinion
2:19-cv-02017-KJM-DB
10-19-2022
Lia D. Mollica, Plaintiff, v. County of Sacramento, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Lia D. Mollica alleges she sustained severe injuries while incarcerated in the Sacramento County Main Jail but was wrongfully denied medical treatment. See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 20. The Magistrate Judge granted her motion to compel responses to several written discovery requests, and the County moves for reconsideration. See MJ Order, ECF No. 51. The matter is fully briefed and was submitted without a hearing. See generally Mot. Recons., ECF No. 54; Opp'n, ECF No. 55. As explained in this order, the motion to reconsider is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits parties to object to a magistrate judge's orders on any nondispositive pretrial matter. A district court must consider timely objections and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). These two standards- “clearly erroneous” and “contrary to law”-apply to different aspects of the magistrate judge's order. The “contrary to law” standard applies to legal determinations. See, e.g., Computer Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)). Legal questions are considered de novo. See Id. The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual determinations and discretionary decisions. See id. (citing Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)). A decision is “clearly erroneous” if the district court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The latter is a “significantly differential” standard of review. Id. at 623.
The County requests reconsideration on three points:
1. Interrogatory No. 8. In this interrogatory, Mollica asked the County to identify “each complaint/grievance of jail staff's alleged failure to provide medical care . . . from May 4, 2018 to May 4, 2020.” MJ Order at 2 (alteration in original). The Magistrate Judge found this request was relevant, not vague, and not unduly burdensome. Id. at 2-4. The County argues this decision was “manifestly unjust” because the interrogatory requests personal and private information, because it does not protect the rights of third parties, and because it is unduly burdensome. See Mot. Recons. at 5-6. The magistrate judge did not clearly err. First, motions to redact or file under seal and confidentiality designations are the proper tools to protect the private and sensitive personal information that might be disclosed by responses to this interrogatory. Second, as Mollica argues without objection, the County waived or forfeited this argument in proceedings before the Magistrate Judge. See Opp'n at 4. Third, the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err by concluding the County will not suffer an undue burden. The County has not substantiated its argument that the necessary searches will be burdensome, for example by explaining how many records it must review, how long that review will take and cost, and such. It has only asserted the burden would be undue.
2. Requests for Production Nos. 48-57. The Magistrate Judge considered some of these requests separately, but the County relies on the same arguments in its current motion. See MJ Order at 4-5. Mollica asked the County to produce documents related to several lawsuits about other alleged failures to provide medical care. See id. The Magistrate Judge found these requests were relevant to Mollica's Monell claim but limited the County's production obligation to the investigations it conducted while Mollica was incarcerated. See id. The County argues the lawsuits and investigations are irrelevant because they do not relate to “a failure to provide timely outpatient orthopedic surgery for a fractured heal [sic]” and because those lawsuits might not have resulted in any “finding of unconstitutional conduct.” Mot. Recons. at 7. The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err by concluding these requests are relevant. Mollica claims the County has a policy or practice of providing inadequate medical care in the Main Jail. Evidence about how the County responded in other cases of allegedly inadequate medical care may lead to the discovery of relevant information about its practices and policies for providing healthcare to detainees. The County also contends the requests are unduly burdensome. Id. Again, it has not proven searches would in fact be unduly burdensome, but rather has only asserted that claim.
3. Requests for Production Nos. 58 and 59. Mollica requested the production of two individual defendants' personnel files. See MJ Order at 5. The Magistrate Judge granted this request. Id. First, the defendants agreed “performance evaluations and disciplinary records” could be relevant, and second, “the remaining documents” such as “educational records, letters of recommendation, letters of commendation, etc., were relevant measures of the employees' “caliber.” Id. The defendants request either clarification that they need only produce those items the Magistrate Judge specifically listed or, in the alternative, an order relieving them of their obligation to produce anything but the listed documents. See Mot. Recons. at 8-9. They also argue the personnel files include private and irrelevant information. See id. The Magistrate Judge did not err by determining that confidentiality designations can protect the defendants' privacy. See MJ Order at 5. Nor did the Magistrate Judge err by concluding personnel records were relevant. A review of the defendants' personnel records will likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence about the defendants' credibility or the County's decisions to adopt or ratify their actions.
The motion to reconsider is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.