Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

All discovery disputes in these proceedings have been referred to Magistrate Judge

Moulds. Aug. 17, 2007 Order at 4.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDER

TO PRODUCE DISK FOR IN

CAMERA REVIEW

These matters come before the Court on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration or, in

the alternative, motion to stay Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds’s order that Defendants

produce for in camera review a disk containing all documents for which Defendants assert a

privilege.1

 After carefully considering Defendants’ moving papers, Plaintiffs’ opposition,

and the history of this case, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 985 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During a telephonic conference on November 1, 2007, and as memorialized in a

stipulation signed by the parties later that same day, “Judge Moulds requested Defendants

submit to the Court for in camera review a copy of documents Defendants claim to be

privileged on the day each of the privilege logs are served.” Nov. 1, 2007 Stipulation

Regarding Defs.’ Rolling Production. The parties stipulated that privilege logs would be

produced on a rolling basis, with deadlines set for November 9, 16, 23, and 30, and

December 7, 2007. Id. at 3-4. While it appears that Defendants have to date complied with

their obligation to provide privilege logs to Plaintiffs by the above deadlines, they have not

complied with their obligation to submit copies of documents for which the privilege was

claimed for in camera review.

On November 19, 2007, Judge Moulds orally ordered Defendants to submit for in

camera review by the close of business on November 20, 2007, all documents for which

Defendants had to date claimed a privilege. Judge Moulds memorialized his oral order in a

written order filed on November 20, 2007, in which he also made clear that, for all future

assertions of privilege, documents must be submitted under seal to him within twenty-four

hours of service of the privilege log unless the party asserting the privilege has been

informed that the opposing party does not contest the assertion of the privilege. Nov. 20,

2007 Order at 3 & n.3.

Defendants sought reconsideration of that order in a motion filed before Judge Moulds

on November 20, 2007. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and Judge Moulds denied

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration during a telephonic conference on November 21,

2007.

Defendants then filed the instant motion before this Court later that same day. 

Plaintiffs filed timely opposition papers on November 26, 2007. See E.D. Cal. L.R.

72-303(d) (providing that any opposition to a motion for reconsideration of a magistrate

judge’s ruling before a district court be filed within five court days after service of the

motion).

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 985 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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

DISCUSSION

This Court’s review of Judge Moulds’s orders is governed by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72 and Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303. Under those rules, a

party has ten days to seek reconsideration before the district court of a ruling by a magistrate

judge; if objections are not filed within that time period, they are deemed waived, and the

magistrate judge’s ruling is final. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-303(b). If timely

objections are received, the district court “shall consider such objections and shall modify or

set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-303(f).

In this case, Defendants’ objections may not have been raised timely because they

challenge Judge Moulds’s November 1, 2007 order requiring Defendants to submit

documents for in camera review on a rolling basis. The time for raising such objections

expired on November 16, 2007, and Defendants did not seek reconsideration before this

Court until November 21, 2007.

Moreover, even if construed as a timely objection to Judge Moulds’s repetition of his

earlier ruling orally on November 19 and in writing on November 20, and his denial of

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on November 21, Defendants fail to persuade the

Court that Judge Moulds’s decision was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(a). While Defendants correctly observe that the usual practice is for the parties to meet

and confer and then to submit documents for in camera review only after the meet-and-confer

process has failed to resolve all disputes, the Court finds Judge Moulds’s decisions in this

case to be well within his discretion to manage the matters before him. It is abundantly clear

to the Court, as the Court suspects it is to Judge Moulds, that the ongoing meet-and-confer

process will not resolve all disputes regarding Defendants’ assertions of privilege. In

addition, Judge Moulds did not require the production for in camera review of documents for

which no party contests the assertion of a privilege.

Given the voluminous nature of the documents at issue, combined with the parties’

significant and contentious discovery disputes to date, it was not clearly erroneous for Judge

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 985 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Moulds to request that he be given documents on a rolling basis, even if not all of those

documents will ultimately be subject to a motion to compel. Having the documents in

advance will allow Judge Moulds to make a more informed decision on any disputes he must

ultimately decide. If Defendants’ proposal were adopted, Judge Moulds would be expected

to review for the first time thousands of pages of documents submitted on December 4, 2007,

in time for a hearing two days later. This Court disagrees that Judge Moulds’s order will

result in an inefficient use of judicial resources, but even if it might, Defendants have failed

to persuade the Court that such a finding would be a sufficient basis for this Court to vacate

or stay Judge Moulds’s ruling. Nor have Defendants provided any evidence that they will be

prejudiced by complying with Judge Moulds’s orders to submit documents for in camera

review.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration or,

in the alternative, a stay of Judge Moulds’s orders to submit documents for in camera review

is DENIED. Defendants shall submit under seal to Judge Moulds an electronic copy of all

documents for which they have claimed a privilege – except for those, if any, for which

Plaintiffs have stated they do not contest the assertion of privilege – by no later than 5:00 PM

on November 28, 2007. All other aspects of Judge Moulds’s orders remain unchanged.

The Court further notes Plaintiffs’ suggestion that sanctions be imposed for

Defendants’ failure to comply with the discovery orders in this case. The Court finds this

issue best left in the first instance to Judge Moulds’s discretion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/27/07 /s/ 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 985 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Dated: 11/27/07 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 11/27/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 985 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 5