Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA 

DOE, a fictitious name, and “I.D.,” a 

fictitious name, by and through her next 

friend, MARIA DOE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE; DARRYL RODERICK; 

JAGDEEP SINGH, individually and as 

administrator of the Estate of Sushma 

Giri; V & N ASSOCIATES, LLC; and 

ALIDA ESTRADA, 

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD

ORDER

By way of the present action, Plaintiffs seek to recover from various Defendants, 

including the County of Sacramento (“County”), for injuries sustained when she and her 

children were purportedly coerced to leave their apartment by a Sheriff’s Deputy without 

legal process or an interpreter. Presently before the Court is the County’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (ECF No. 74) of the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion 

to Compel (ECF No. 72) requiring the County to produce over 50,000 CAD reports or to 

allow Plaintiffs’ expert to access the system to conduct their own search. For the 

following reasons, that Motion is DENIED.1 

1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 85 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply 

the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 

303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's 

decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 

U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If the Court 

believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after 

considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that “it 

would have weighed the evidence differently.” Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal 

Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

After reviewing the entire file, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order 

was not clearly erroneous. The Magistrate Jude had already determined in a previous 

ruling that the evidence Plaintiffs are seeking, CAD reports, is relevant. That ruling 

became final months before the County filed the instant motion and it is not subject to 

reconsideration. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(b). Regardless, the Court agrees that 

those records are indeed relevant, not just because they exist, but because of their 

content. 

Accordingly, the County resorts to arguing that the production ordered is not 

reasonably proportional to the needs of the case and that it would be overly 

burdensome. But all of that was considered by the Magistrate Judge. While the Court 

understands that the parties are trying to manage a massive amount of electronic 

information, Plaintiffs have specifically offered to have their own expert work toward 

extracting the necessary data, and the County must have access to third parties capable 

of handling this as well. Finally, it is counterintuitive to the Court that the County should 

submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 85 Filed 04/15/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

be able to rely on its own system shortcomings (e.g., unable to produce electronic data) 

to avoid its discovery obligations, especially in a time when the production of ESI is 

routine. In any event, the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in rejecting the County’s 

arguments as to proportionality and burden. The County’s Motion (ECF No. 74) is thus 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2024

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 85 Filed 04/15/24 Page 3 of 3