Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00695/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00695-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARY LOU GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00695-BLF 

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Re: ECF 147]

Before the Court is plaintiff Marylou Gonzales’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive 

Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge, wherein she seeks relief from a discovery order entered by 

Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Pl.’s Mot., ECF 147. Plaintiff is not seeking relief from the 

discovery order, per se. Indeed, she actually prevailed in the underlying dispute, as Judge Grewal 

denied Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to answer certain questions at her deposition, 

finding that she properly invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining 

to answer those questions. See Order Denying Mot. for Sanctions, Denying Mot. to Compel and 

Denying Mot. to Strike (“Order”) at 4-5, ECF 137. Plaintiff does not challenge that outcome. 

Instead, she assigns error to Judge Grewal’s determination—in arriving at a ruling favorable to 

her—that the questions she refused to answer were “reasonably calculated” to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence concerning her emotional distress. Pl.’s Mot. 6;1 Order at 4-5; 

Clarification re Order, ECF 139.2 Plaintiff also claims that Judge Grewal’s order is clearly 

 

1 Because Plaintiff’s motion contains no page numbers, references are to the ECF page numbers.

2

Plaintiff filed a procedurally unorthodox motion before Judge Grewal seeking clarification of 

three statements in his order before filing a motion before the undersigned seeking relief from 

those statements on which she sought clarification. See ECF 138, 139.

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 149 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

erroneous in stating that “Plaintiff refused to answer questions about the day in question” and that 

she “refused to answer emotional distress questions.” Pl.’s Mot. 2-6. 

Plaintiff’s motion is without merit. “When a discovery order centers on a magistrate’s 

determination of relevance, ‘the standard of review in most instances is not the explicit statutory 

language, but the clearly implicit standard of abuse of discretion.’” Equal Employment 

Opportunity Comm’n v. Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 484-85 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting 

Geophysical Sys. Corp. v. Raytheon Co., Inc., 117 F.R.D. 646, 647 (C.D. Cal. 1987)). As the 

court in Geophysical explained:

The test of relevance in the discovery context is a very broad one. 

More precise evidentiary rulings should await trial, when the issues 

are more clearly defined, and be made then or in limine. At this 

juncture, the Court must review the magistrate’s order with an eye 

toward the broad standard of relevance in the discovery context. 

117 F.R.D. at 647 (internal citation omitted). Judge Grewal made a finding pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26 that Defendants’ questions were “‘reasonably calculated’ to lead to 

admissible evidence” regarding Plaintiff’s emotional distress. Clarification re Order at 2. There 

was no abuse of discretion in this determination, and in fact Judge Grewal correctly observed that 

Defendants could seek to test the actual evidentiary implications of Plaintiff’s invocation of the 

5th Amendment before the undersigned. See Order at 5. Likewise, the Court finds no clear error 

in the “findings of fact” that Plaintiff challenges. Taken in the proper context in which the 

statements regarding Plaintiff’s refusal to answer were written, it is not even clear that they were 

findings of fact.

Ultimately, Plaintiff appears to be seeking a ruling from the undersigned, perhaps in 

anticipation of an in limine motion by Defendants, that Plaintiff’s invocation of her right against 

self-incrimination will not have any negative consequences with respect to her claim for emotional 

distress damages. A motion for relief from the ruling of a magistrate judge in one’s favor is an 

improper vehicle for such evidentiary dispute, particularly as it is not ripe for decision by this 

Court. Plaintiff does not seek to overturn Judge Grewal’s order ruling that she should not be 

compelled to answer certain questions in deposition. As such, there is no relief to grant. This 

Court does not expend its limited resources rendering advisory opinions on how other judges 

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 149 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

should write their orders. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order 

of Magistrate Judge is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 149 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 3