Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01984/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

TWIN STAR INTERNATIONAL,

INC.; TS INVESTMENT HOLDING

CORP.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WHALEN FURNITURE

MANUFACTURING, INC.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.11cv1984 AJB (WVG)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GALLO’S

JUNE 28, 2013 ORDER AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

(Docs. No. 58 and 60)

Plaintiffs have filed objections to Judge Gallo’s June 18, 2013 Order (Doc. No.

56), which followed a Status Conference on June 18, 2013. Defendant has filed its

opposition. Following a review of the pleadings on file in this case, the Court overrules

Plaintiffs’ objection and affirms Judge Gallo’s Order for the reasons set forth below. In

addition, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal. (Doc.

No. 60.)

BACKGROUND

Judge Gallo held a Status Conference on June 18, 2013. This was an informal

proceeding, without advance briefing and was discussed “off the record.”1

1

 Defense counsel Randall S. Waier states in his Declaration that the matter was

heard “on the record.” (Doc. No. 62, at 7:3-5.) Upon inquiry of Judge Gallo’s chambers,

1 11cv1984

Case 3:11-cv-01984-AJB-WVG Document 66 Filed 07/09/13 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

In the subject Order, Judge Gallo ruled, among other things, that the Plaintiffs were

to identify, by Bates stamp number, all documents that they reasonably intend to use at

Plaintiffs’ depositions in Hong Kong. Similarly, Defendant was also required to identify

by Bates stamp number, all documents that it reasonably intends to use at Defendant’s

depositions in Hong Kong.

Plaintiffs have filed an Objection requesting “independent review” of the Court’s

Order and indicating that the Court is essentially ordering the production of work product

information without a showing of substantial need or undue hardship by the defendants in

this case. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Discovery orders are ordinarily considered non-dispositive because they do not

have the effect of dismissing a cause of action, a claim or a defense, affect the issuance of

an injunction, or have some other conclusive consequence. Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc.,

902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990). Due to discovery motions' nondispositive nature,

decisions by a magistrate judge regarding the scope and nature of discovery are "afforded

broad discretion." Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Marc Chantal USA, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 21530, *2 (S.D. Cal. March 18, 2008).

For nondispositive matters, like the majority of discovery rulings, the district judge

in a case must modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. Id. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Grimes v. City and County of San

Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991).

“Under this standard of review, a magistrate [judge]'s order is 'clearly erroneous' if,

after considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed, and the order is 'contrary to law' when it

fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Yent v.

it was confirmed that the matter was not on the record but rather an informal discussion

from which Judge Gallo’s Order issued. 

2 11cv1984

Case 3:11-cv-01984-AJB-WVG Document 66 Filed 07/09/13 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

Baca, 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner

Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy

Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)).

In contrast, and not applicable here, if the matter were considered “dispositive” it

would be reviewed on a de novo standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b). 

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE

A Court may order disclosure of work product, if “good cause” is shown. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511-512 (1947). Ordinarily, work

product, such as an attorney’s compilation of documents and other raw information, is

discoverable upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need for the

disclosure, and is unable to otherwise procure it without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(n)(3); Martin Bally’s Park Place Hotel & Casino, 983 F.2d 1252, 1262 (3rd Cir.

1993). In appropriate cases, the examining attorney may be required to identify before

deposition all documents about which he or she intends to question the deponent. The

examining attorney’s selection may be “work product,” but it is only a qualified privileged because it will be disclosed eventually. In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire

Litig., 859 F.2d 1007, 1015 (1st Cir. 1988). In re Remac Sec. Litig. 2009 U.S. LEXIS

131999, at *11, an opinion authored by this Court, citing In re San Juan Dupont Plaza

Hotel Litigation, in a footnote that “no opinion - work-product protection should attach

unless disclosure creates a ‘real, nonspeculative danger of revealing the lawyer’s

thoughts,’ and unless the lawyer had a justifiable expectation that the mental impressions

would remain private.” (Emphasis added.)

DISCUSSION

As indicated above, Judge Gallo is to be afforded broad discretion in the management of discovery. The documents on file relative to this motion, and to the case in

general, indicate that Judge Gallo has been significantly engaged with the parties in

3 11cv1984

Case 3:11-cv-01984-AJB-WVG Document 66 Filed 07/09/13 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

managing discovery to date in this case. While the status conference was informal and no

record exists, counsel have detailed their respective positions and the discussions with

Judge Gallo. The totality of the circumstances in issue, including the logistics regarding

the depositions scheduled for Hong Kong, and the fact that the documents themselves

would be disclosed at the deposition in this case, present a scenario where, on balance

would support findings of a substantial need and undue hardship supporting such action.

Whether or not this Court would have ruled similarly in the first instance, this Court

cannot say that Judge Gallo’s Order is clearly erroneous and certainly not contrary to law

regarding the work product privilege. Indeed, depositions in document-intensive cases

overseas often require accommodations and a practical approach to the manner in which

discovery should proceed, including depositions. Given the seven (7) hour limit for

depositions, it is not clearly erroneous to require the production of essential documents to

ensure that the proceeding can be held within the presumptive time as set forth in the

Federal Rules. Such action would also be consistent with Rule 1's mandate to 

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action. Based thereon, the

Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and affirms Judge Gallo’s Order. Counsel are

directed to contact Judge Gallo for assistance in rescheduling the cancelled depositions

and further moving this case forward at this time.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled and Judge

Gallo’s Order of June 18, 2013 is affirmed. Additionally, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 11cv1984

Case 3:11-cv-01984-AJB-WVG Document 66 Filed 07/09/13 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

DATED: July 9, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

5 11cv1984

Case 3:11-cv-01984-AJB-WVG Document 66 Filed 07/09/13 Page 5 of 5