Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02649/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02649-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-02649-RS 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

DETERMINATION

This action concerns events which transpired upon defendants’ erroneous conclusion that 

plaintiff Denise Green was driving a stolen vehicle. Plaintiff and defendants the City and County 

of San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”), and Sergeant Ja Han Kim, have 

been engaged in discovery in anticipation of the upcoming trial, calendared to commence in 

September 2015. The parties initially disclosed their expert witnesses in 2011. In the interim,

however, defendants’ expert witness Mr. Dale Stockton became unavailable to testify, 

necessitating a stipulation between the parties to allow defendants to replace Mr. Stockton with 

Mr. Scot Haug. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Mr. Haug was permitted to step in so long as

his testimony remained “limited to topics addressed in Mr. Stockton’s expert disclosure in this 

case.” Docket No. 99. Contending that Mr. Haug’s report exceeded these parameters to plaintiff’s 

detriment, plaintiff moved to have eight offending passages stricken from the report. This motion 

was denied by the assigned magistrate judge on April 8, 2015 in a thorough and well-reasoned 

written order, to which plaintiff now objects. 

Case 3:10-cv-02649-RS Document 114 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION

CASE NO. 10-cv-02649-RS

2

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

Northern District of California

A district court may modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if 

the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). It is plain that while 

Mr. Haug does not address the two chief topics addressed in Mr. Stockton’s report—(1) the 

reasonableness of Sergeant Kim’s belief that there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic 

stop of Ms. Green’s car; and (2) that SFPD’s policies and training on Automatic License Plate 

Readers (ALPRs) met national standards—with identical analysis, plaintiff has shown no error in 

the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Mr. Haug nevertheless limited his comments to these topics, 

in conformity with the parties’ agreement. Plaintiff’s objections to the non-dispositive order must, 

therefore, be overruled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02649-RS Document 114 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 2