Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00180/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00180-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:30104 Marine Personal Injury - Jones Act

---

1 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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 

ANAKAREN LOPEZ, as personal 

representative of SALOMON 

RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al. 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

ORDER REMANDING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER 

COMPELLING DEFENDANT TO 

PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 

ANOTHER INSPECTION 

 [Doc. No. 47] 

AND RELATED CROSS CLAIM.

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the magistrate judge’s 

September 30, 2016 order denying her request for a second inspection. Defendant opposes 

Plaintiff’s motion. Upon a thorough review of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds it 

appropriate to remand Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant to provide 

Plaintiff another opportunity to inspect the subject elevator platform at the flight deck level. 

BACKGROUND

 On January 27, 2015, Damaris Manzanero Vazquez, appearing as the personal 

representative of Salomon Rodriguez, filed a complaint against United States of America 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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

and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (“NASSCO”). On November 23, 2015, 

Anakaren Lopez, appearing as the personal representative of Salomon Rodriguez, filed a 

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), seeking damages for negligence. Plaintiff Lopez 

alleges Defendants’ negligence caused Salomon Rodriguez to fall off the unguarded side 

of an elevator platform approximately 98 feet down an elevator trunk while working aboard 

the USS Boxer in navigable waters at Pier 13, Naval Station, San Diego, California. FAC 

¶¶ 11 - 21. Plaintiff asserts, as the decedent’s personal representative, she is entitled to 

recover on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez’s minor son. Id. ¶ 26. 

 Defendant United States filed an answer and cross claim against Defendant 

NASSCO, and NASSCO filed an answer to the FAC and an answer to the crossclaim. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel and experts were given the opportunity to inspect the elevator at 

issue. Plaintiff served a second request to inspect the elevator and Defendant United States 

objected. The Honorable William Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge, conducted a 

telephonic discovery conference and directed the parties to file a joint statement with their 

respective position. On September 30, 2016, Judge Gallo issued an order denying 

Plaintiff’s request to inspect the elevator a second time. 

 Plaintiff objects to Judge Gallo’s order and seeks an order setting aside the 

September 30, 2016 order and compelling Defendant to provide Plaintiff the opportunity 

to inspect the subject elevator platform at the flight deck level as it was on the day Mr. 

Rodriguez fell to his death and to observe the aft door open and the aft ramp deployed to 

determine whether such a configuration could have prevented the tragedy. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within 

fourteen days after service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge’s 

determination of such matters is entitled to deference unless it is clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

 The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual 

determinations and discretionary decisions. Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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

951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discretionary non-dispositive pre-trial matters by 

magistrate judge are reviewable for clear error); Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 

748 (9th Cir. 1990) (factual determinations made in connection with sanction award are 

reviewable for clear error). This standard requires “a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been committed.” Security Farms v. Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 

999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 The “contrary to law” standard applies to review of purely legal determinations by 

a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) 

(“the phrase ‘contrary to law’ indicates plenary review as to matters of law.”); Medical 

Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D.Cal. 1996) 

(“Section 636(b)(1). . .has been interpreted to provide for de novo review by the district 

court on issues of law). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies 

relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 

F.Supp.2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (citing DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159, 

163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). 

DISCUSSION 

A. Judge Gallo’s Order

 The parties submitted a joint statement for determination of the discovery dispute to 

Judge Gallo. The United States objected to the second inspection on the ground the request 

was unreasonably cumulative, duplicative and the information sought could be obtained 

from another, more convenient, less burdensome source. Defendant maintained Plaintiff 

previously inspected the elevator at a safe level, possessed photographs of the elevator 

taken on the day of the incident and detailed drawings and measurements of how it existed 

on the day of the incident, and possessed blueprints and operational, maintenance and 

safety instructions for the elevator. Defendant also maintained Plaintiff’s request was 

unduly burdensome because it would require a significant amount of manpower and the 

need to employ and pay a contractor to install fall protection. 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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

 Plaintiff argued the second inspection was necessary for her to prove a critical theory 

of liability. Plaintiff’s theory is the decedent’s fall was caused by the gap between the 

elevator platform and the flight deck as it was configured 98 feet above ground, and she 

argued, the only way to know whether the configuration caused the tragedy was to “1) 

measure the gap space for themselves; 2) see what visual cues the decedent saw while on 

the platform that would have indicated to him his proximity to the ledge; and 3) determine 

whether fall arrested systems were feasible at that height given the platform’s proximity to 

other objects at that deck level.” Joint Statement (Doc. No. 40) at 8. She further argued 

the importance of inspecting the platform as it was on the date of the incident outweighed 

any burden to Defendant. She asserted any burden was minimal because Navy personnel 

would not be inconvenienced from more than an hour and the cost would be minimal given 

the Navy’s operating budget. 

 Judge Gallo found Defendant would suffer a certain degree of burden but not so 

great as to preclude Plaintiff’s request outright. Addressing each of Plaintiff’s three 

reasons for the request, Judge Gallo also found Plaintiff made a minimal showing of need, 

if any, to inspect the elevator platform a second time in the raised position. Judge Gallo 

then applied the balancing test of Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., 588 F.2d 

904 (4th Cir. 1978), and determined the burden imposed on Defendant outweighs 

Plaintiff’s stated interest in inspecting the elevator platform a second time. 

B. Plaintiff’s Objection 

 Plaintiff maintains she was denied access to all relevant parts of the elevator during 

the first inspection. Specifically, she alleges there is an aft door on the elevator shaft at the 

flight deck level, and when the aft door is opened a ramp lowers down which Plaintiff 

believes would have covered the opening through which Mr. Rodriguez fell to his death. 

She contends counsel and his experts were given an opportunity to inspect the elevator on 

January 27, 2016, but on a rush basis and were only permitted to inspect the elevator at the 

bottom of the shaft. She further contends they were not permitted to inspect the platform 

or the aft ramp at the flight deck level, the aft door and aft ramp of cargo weapons elevator 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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

no. 3 on the USS BOXER at the flight deck level. Additionally, she maintains they have 

not been provided equivalent photographs, and have never been allowed to inspect the hole 

through which Mr. Rodriguez fell. Plaintiff maintains the failure to lower the ramp is 

critical to how the accident occurred and critical to Plaintiff’s liability arguments. 

 Plaintiff argues Judge Gallo’s order denying the inspection is clearly erroneous 

because it misses one of Plaintiff’s material purposes for the inspection, to determine 

whether or not the aft door, which exists only at the flight deck level, when open and 

deploying its aft ramp, would have, with the aft ramp, sufficiently covered the opening 

through which Mr. Rodriguez fell to his death and thereby prevented his death. She 

maintains determining whether Defendants could have taken reasonable steps, such as 

lowering the aft ramp to save Mr. Rodriguez’s life, is the whole reason for this litigation 

and refusing her counsel access to the aft ramp will have the effect of reducing her case to 

speculation. She argues Judge Gallo’s ruling is clearly erroneous because it fails to 

contemplate that this inspection could determine whether or not opening the aft door at the 

flight deck level and lowering the aft ramp could have covered the hole sufficiently to 

prevent the decedent from falling to his death. 

 Plaintiff further argues the order is contrary to law because it fails to liberally 

construe discovery requests and balance relative interests as mandated by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

 In opposition, Defendant agues the Court should ignore Plaintiff’s new argument 

raised for the first time in objection and deny Plaintiff’s motion on that basis. 

 Defendant further argues, even if the Court considers the merits of Plaintiff’s 

objection, Judge Gallo’s order is neither erroneous nor contrary to law because Judge Gallo 

did not misapply the applicable discovery statute or relevant case law. Defendant 

maintains it allowed Plaintiff’s counsel and experts to thoroughly inspect, measure and 

photograph the subject elevator platform while it was at a safer level. Additionally, 

Defendant maintains it provided Plaintiff with diagrams, measurements, and photographs 

of the elevator as it was on the day of the incident. Defendant contends Judge Gallo applied 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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

the applicable discovery statutes and relevant case law and determined Plaintiff did not 

make a minimal showing of need to inspect the elevator platform a second time at the flight 

deck level. Defendant argues Judge Gallo’s finding that the United States’ burden 

outweighed Plaintiff’s stated interest in conducting a second inspection was not erroneous 

nor contrary to law. 

 In reply, Plaintiff contends a district court has full discretion to consider arguments 

made for the first time in a parties’ objection to a magistrate judge’s decision. She further 

contends the arguments made before Judge Gallo and before this Court are similarly 

intertwined because both are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. She 

argues finding out whether the death could have been prevented if the government 

deployed the aft ramp, could make a material difference in the outcome of this case. She 

maintains the first inspection of the site was a “take it or leave it” inspection at the spur of 

the moment, and argues the government should not act surprised and indignant when an 

inspection under these circumstances is not good enough to provide the Plaintiff with the 

discovery she is entitled to under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff contends 

the argument offered to this Court, although not previously made before Judge Gallo is not 

so different as to be considered “out of left field” and, is potentially material to the outcome 

of a case that is itself of the utmost importance. Therefore, she argues, this Court may 

exercise its discretion to hear this new argument favoring the first inspection of the elevator 

platform at the flight deck level. 

 Plaintiff further argues she makes a clear showing that one key theory of liability 

can be proven based on the evidence gathered at a second site inspection conducted 

properly. 

C. Analysis

 Plaintiff raises a new argument in support of her request for a second inspect that 

she did not raise before Judge Gallo. This Court has the discretion to consider Plaintiff’s 

new argument raised for the first time in her objection. See United States v. Howell, 231 

F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the Court finds it inappropriate to determine 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

15cv00180 JAH-WVG 

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

whether Judge Gallo’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel was clearly erroneous 

or contrary to law when Judge Gallo was not provided an opportunity to address the new 

argument raised by Plaintiff. The Court, notwithstanding, declines to deny the motion on 

that basis and will, instead, remand the issue to provide Judge Gallo an opportunity to 

address the new argument. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is remanded to Judge Gallo to consider Plaintiff’s 

new argument in determining whether Plaintiff’s interest in inspecting the elevator 

platform a second time outweighs the burden to Defendant. 

 2. Plaintiff shall notify the Court of Judge Gallo’s ruling and whether she renews 

her objection and motion to set aside based upon the ruling no more than seven (7) days 

after Judge Gallo issues his ruling. 

DATED: March 6, 2017 

 

 _________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00180-JAH-WVG Document 56 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7