Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Barbara Wood, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Vista Manor Nursing Center, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-01682 JW 

ORDER SUSTAINING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO

PROJECT SENTINEL

Before the Court is non-party Project Sentinel’s objection and appeal of Magistrate Judge

Trumbull’s March 16, 2007 Order granting in part, denying in part, Defendants’ motion to compel

compliance with subpoena. (See Docket Item No. 45.) Project Sentinel asks the Court to:

(1) Set aside the Order regarding Request No. 85, requiring Project Sentinel to produce

“any and all documents which reflect, evidence or mention testing reports submitted

to AIDS Legal Services in the year 2004;” and,

(2) Modifying the Order regarding Request Numbers 94 to 107, requiring Project

Sentinel to produce “documents which reflect, evidence or mention tests conducted

by Project Sentinel, on nursing centers located in the South Bay, for HIV disability

housing discrimination from 2003 to the present,” by limiting the Order to cover

facilities owned for operated by Defendants only.

A party may object to a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within ten days

after service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge's order will be upheld unless

it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A magistrate judge's

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 67 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

factual determinations are subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard. Maisonville v F2. Am., Inc.,

902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990).

Applying the above standards, the Court finds that Judge Trumbull’s Order is not clearly

erroneous. Defendants have a right to information to test the credibility of the evidence which

provides the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims for discrimination. Project Sentinel’s concern that the

production of the documents would violated the right of privacy is addressed by the protective order

already in place. However, to ensure that Project Sentinel’s clients and testers’ personal information

is protected, the Court orders that any personal information about the complainants and testers shall

be redacted.

The Court sustains the objection to Judge Trumbull’s nondispostive order re: motion to

compel compliance with subpoena to Project Sentinel.

Dated: May 11, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 67 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alison Ann Brunner alisonb@lawfoundation.org

Annette Kirkham annettek@lawfoundation.org

D. Scott Chang schang@relmanlaw.com

Keith A. Fink kfink@finklawfirm.com

Kerstin Arusha kerstina@lawfoundation.org

Whitney Huston whitneyh@lawfoundation.org

Dated: May 11, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 67 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 3