Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01553/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01553-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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

09cv1553

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

 SONICVIEW USA, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv1553-L(WVG)

ORDER OVERRULING

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

DISCOVERY ORDER

In this action for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Communications

Act, Plaintiffs, who operate a satellite television system, alleged that Defendants are heavily

involved in the manufacture and distribution of hardware and software used to intercept and steal

DISH Network's encrypted satellite signal. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction has

been granted and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim has been denied. The

parties are currently engaging in discovery. On March 4, 2011 the Magistrate Judge issued an

order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (“Order”). Defendants

filed objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) insofar as the Order compels

them to produce certain tax returns and information pertaining to their net worth. Plaintiffs

responded to the objections. For the reasons which follow, Defendants’ objections are

OVERRULED.

District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. 

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 109 Filed 04/06/11 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 09cv1553

Discovery motions, such as the motion at issue here, are non-dispositive. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Civ. Loc. R. 72.1(b). A district court judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s

ruling on a non-dispositive motion only “where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(a).

The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of tax returns and

net worth information and documents in part because in their responses to the corresponding

interrogatories and requests for production Defendants did not comply with Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 26(g)(1), 33 and 34. These rules require the responding party to state its

objections with specificity. See also Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)

(“objections should be plain enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what

way the interrogatories are alleged to be objectionable”). Instead, Defendants used the same

boilerplate for each response. The generic responses were not informative as to the grounds for

objections as they related to Defendants and the requested information or documents. (Order at

6-7.) Moreover, Defendants did not correct this in their briefing before the Magistrate Judge. 

(Id. at 7.) Defendants do not dispute this in their objections to the Order. In light of the

foregoing, it was not error for the Magistrate Judge to order Defendants to respond to the

discovery requests. See Davis, 650 F.2d at 1160-61 (imposing default judgment as sanction for

inadequate information in support of a claim of privilege in objections to interrogatories). 

Because this was a sufficient ground for the Magistrate Judge to order compliance, the court

need not address Defendants’ argument that the tax returns and net worth information were not

relevant or necessary in this case. 

Defendants also contend that production of tax returns is precluded by a qualified

privilege based on a right to privacy under California constitution. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs

assert only federal claims in this case. Accordingly, federal rather than California law applies. 

Fed. R. of Evid. 501. Under federal law, tax returns are subject to discovery. St. Regis Paper

Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 218 (1961). Defendants do not dispute this in their

objections to the Order. The court notes that discovery of tax returns is subject to a public policy

against unnecessary public disclosure. Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 109 Filed 04/06/11 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 09cv1553

F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). In this case, the policy against unnecessary public disclosure is

adequately addressed by means of a protective order, which was entered on August 14, 2009.

For the foregoing reasons, the court cannot find that the Magistrate Judge’s order is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 109 Filed 04/06/11 Page 3 of 3