Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00282/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00282-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

1 CMAC is not a party to this lawsuit. The parties served

CMAC with a subpoena duces tecum. Defendant Los Angeles County (LA

County) has filed a joinder to CMAC’s motion to reconsider.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ex rel. BEVERLY ENGLUND,

NO. CIV. S-04-282 LKK/JFM

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is a motion filed by California

Medical Assistance Commission (CMAC) seeking reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s order filed February 21, 2006 regarding a

protective order.1 Relator, Beverly Englund, opposes this

motion. Below, I address the parties’ arguments.

////

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 120 Filed 03/23/06 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

2

I.

STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER

 The standard employed by the district court in reviewing

decisions of the magistrate judge depends upon the character of the

underlying decision. Non-dispositive pre-trial motions referred

to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) are

reviewed under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,

673 (1980). On the other hand, a magistrate judge's determination

concerning matters referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

are for the most part reviewed de novo. Thus, the district court

reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,

1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982), and the

magistrate judge's conclusions of law. Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d

1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified

School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court may,

however, assume the correctness of that portion of the proposed

findings of fact to which no objection has been made and decide the

motion on applicable law. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d

614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989)(citing Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d

207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979)). 

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 120 Filed 03/23/06 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

2 CMAC explains that “specific amounts of SB 1255 are

confidentially negotiated between CMAC and each SPCP hospital.”

3

II.

 DISCUSSION

Relator filed her original complaint for damages against Los

Angeles County on February 17, 2004. Relator alleges that the

county made false claims and/or conspired with others in order to

receive unwarranted funds under the Federal Medicaid Program. The

United States elected not to intervene in the suit. Relator served

a number of subpoenas duces tecum on CMAC. CMAC subsequently

requested a protective order to “protect confidentiality of

materials produced under the subpoenas . . . .”2 Mot. for Recon.

at 2. 

On December 6, 2005, the County and relator stipulated to a

proposed protective order regarding the materials produced by CMAC.

The proposed protective order provided that “[a]ll information

produced by third party, CMAC, its current staff, employees, and

commissioners, in this litigation (including but not limited to,

in the course of discovery, deposition or in response to subpoena)

is deemed “Confidential” and shall be treated as “Confidential” for

all purposes.” Stipulated Protective Order at 1-2. On December

9, 2005, the magistrate judge rejected that proposed protective

order, holding that the parties failed to show good cause for the

“blanket protective order” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and Foltz v.

State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).

////

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 120 Filed 03/23/06 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

4

 After relator filed a number of motions to compel, the

magistrate judge ordered CMAC and relator to confer and submit a

proposed joint protective order, or a separate proposed protective

orders if a joint order could not be agreed upon. The parties

conferred but failed to reach a compromise. On February 21, 2006,

the magistrate judge issued an order which stated that:

Insofar as the December 22, 2005 motions to compel

compliance with subpoenas duces tecum issued to the

California Department of Health Services and the

California Medical Commission, those motions will be

granted subject to a protective order restricting the

use of the documents produced to use in this litigation.

This protective order will apply to documents which

plaintiff did not have in her possession prior to

production by the submitting party. 

Order 2:8-13. 

CMAC requests reconsideration of the February 21, 2006 order

with regards to the terms of the protective order under which it

is to produce the subpoenaed materials. Specifically, CMAC

requests that the documents at issue be designated confidential and

be filed under seal “in order to preserve the confidential and nonpublic nature of the materials produced by CMAC.” CMAC’s Mot. for

Recon. at 4. CMAC explains that its “confidential rate information

is too important to allow it to become public,” and urges this

court to revise the magistrate judge’s February 21, 2006 Order. 

Id. at 4. 

Although CMAC’s confidentiality issues raise some concern for

this court, it appears that the magistrate judge considered CMAC’s

confidentiality concerns before issuing the February 21 Order as

the parties addressed such concerns in their proposed protective

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 120 Filed 03/23/06 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

5

orders. He also considered the confidentiality concerns in both

hearings before him and in his December 9, 2005 Order. On a motion

to reconsider, a magistrate judge’s order is reviewed by this court

under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f); United States v.

Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980). CMAC has failed to demonstrate

to this court that “clear error” has been committed by the

magistrate judge or that there are some changed circumstances which

warrant this court’s reconsideration of the matter.

Accordingly, CMAC’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 22, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 120 Filed 03/23/06 Page 5 of 5