Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00248/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00248-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN B. KENNEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-248-WQH-JLB

ORDER

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 444)

filed by Plaintiff John B. Kenney.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On March 29, 2016, after the close of discovery, this Court issued an Order

granting the substitution of certain Doe defendants into the action. The Order stated

that, “Any party may request the Court reopen discovery within 120 days of the date of

this order.” (ECF No. 385). Plaintiff did not file a request to reopen discovery by the

deadline of June 27, 2016. However, Plaintiff served a number of discovery requests

on Defendants on June 27, 2016. (ECF No. 446 at 4; ECF No. 445 at 8, 18). 

On August 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion to Compel FRCP 15 &

26(a)(1)(D) Required Disclosures (ECF No. 400), a Motion to Reopen Discovery, 

(ECF No. 401) and an ex parte Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories (ECF No.

402). Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department, KaseyLee

Lawrence, Kevin Armentano, Steven Eraca, Matthew Koerber, David Mitchell, James

- 1 - 13cv248-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 447 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

Milano, Rodolphe Sainte-Agathe, Craig Shumate, and Erick Valdez filed responses in

opposition to the three motions. (ECF Nos. 404-406). Plaintiff filed replies on August

11, 2016. (ECF No. 408). On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed twelve separate ex parte

Motions to Compel Discovery. (ECF Nos. 410-412). On August 16, 2016, Defendants

filed responses. (ECF Nos. 423-434). 

On September 8, 2016, a telephonic hearing on the motions was held before

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt. (ECF No. 438). At the hearing, the Magistrate Judge

orally ruled on the motions. (ECF No. 438). In the subsequent minute order (the

“Discovery Order”) filed September 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge memorialized the

rulings on the motions. (ECF No. 441). The Discovery Order granted Plaintiff’s ex

parte Motion to Compel discovery pursuant to Court Order ECF No. 385. (ECF No.

400). The Court ordered a limited reopening of discovery for Plaintiff for the discovery

propounded on June 27, 2016 and for Defendants to serve contention interrogatories

and supporting requests for production related to the new defendants. (ECF No. 445

at 18-19). The discovery schedule requires that responses to Plaintiff’s discovery

propounded on June 27, 2016 are due October 10, 2016 and that Defendants may

propound contention interrogatories and requests for production of documents as to the

eight defendants recently substituted in as Doe defendants by September 22, 2016 as

to the five who have been served and within 7 days from the date of service as to the

three not yet served.1

 Id. at 1-2. The Discovery Order denied without prejudice

Plaintiff’s ex parte Motions to Compel Discovery. (ECF Nos. 402, 410-421). The

Discovery Order stated, with regard to each of these ex parte motions to compel

discovery, “At the time this discovery was propounded, discovery had closed and

Plaintiff had neither sought nor received leave of Court to reopen discovery. Now that

Plaintiff has obtained leave to propound this discovery, defendant has until October 10,

2016 to respond.” (ECF No. 441 at 2-5). 

1

 At the hearing on September 8, 2016, counsel for Defendants stated that the

Defendants have agreed to accept service for the Defendants Eraca, Mitchell, and

Shumate by Plaintiff serving them at the office. (ECF No. 445 at 18-19). 

- 2 - 13cv248-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 447 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Magistrate Judge’s September 20, 2016 Discovery Order. (ECF No. 444). Defendants

filed a response in opposition on October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 446).

II. Contentions of the Parties 

Plaintiff contends that the Discovery Order is not clear or the Court has

committed clear and reversible error. (ECF No. 444-1 at 1). Plaintiff contends that

discovery should have been opened broadly and not in the limited manner the

Magistrate Judge ordered. Plaintiff states that the Discovery Order “unilaterally

allow[s] Plaintiff only the very preliminary Discovery requests he had already timely

served, post-Substitution, . . . while allowing [Defendants], after the 9/8/16 Discovery

conference, to serve yet a fourth (4th) or (5th) round.” (ECF No. 444-1 at 7). Plaintiff

contends this “is inherently ‘unfair’ [and] not justified or warranted.” Id. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because it is

procedurally defective, improperly noticed, and untimely. Defendants contend that

Plaintiff “fails to establish any legitimate reason why the Court should reconsider its

September 20, 2016 ruling regarding discovery.” (ECF No. 446 at 1, 5). 

III. Discussion

A district court judge “may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine

any pretrial matter pending before the court” with a limited number of exceptions. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “A judge may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has

been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Id. Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, 

When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is

referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case 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). 

- 3 - 13cv248-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 447 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

A magistrate judge’s nondispositive order may be set aside or modified by a

district court only if it is found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Bhan v.

Hospitals, Inc. 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Matters concerning discovery

generally are considered nondispositive of the litigation and reviewed under the clearly

erroneous standard. See, e.g., FDIC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375,

378 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to the magistrate

judge's factual determinations and discretionary decision made in connection with

non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.”). “Review under the clearly erroneous

standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prod. v. Constr. Laborers Pension

Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (quotation omitted); see also Hernandez v. Tanninen,

604 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010). 

During the proceedings on September 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge requested

that Plaintiff identify the additional discovery required by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 445 at

7-9). Plaintiff failed to specifically articulate additional discovery beyond that which

Plaintiff propounded on June 27, 2016. Id. at 8-12. The Magistrate Judge stated that

“[Plaintiff] had . . . a period within which to conduct discovery. It was extended twice. 

The deadline for conducting discovery closed a year ago. [Plaintiff] had 120 days to

request to reopen discovery as to the new defendants, and [Plaintiff[ did not do that

until August 8 . . .” Id. at 8-9. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff a limited

reopening of discovery, despite the fact that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery was

untimely. During the hearing, Defendants requested that the Court allow the new

Defendants “to serve certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents

to Mr. Kenney regarding specifically the allegations against these new defendants” if

the Court determined that it would allow Plaintiff a limited reopening of discovery. Id.

at 15-17. Plaintiff did not object to Defendant’s request upon direct inquiry by the

Magistrate Judge. Id. at 17. 

This Court concludes that Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order regarding the

- 4 - 13cv248-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 447 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

limited opening of discovery is supported by the facts and the law. The Court

concludes that the Discovery Order (ECF No. 441) and rulings on the record during the

September 8, 2016 proceedings (ECF No. 438) are not clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.

444) is DENIED. 

DATED: October 28, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv248-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 447 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5