Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1 07cv0773 BTM(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE A. BROOKS, ET AL.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0773 BTM (NLS)

ORDER OVERRULING IN PART

RULE 72(a) OBJECTIONS AND

SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT ON

REMAINING ISSUES

vs.

MOTSENBOCKER ADVANCED

DEVELOPMENTS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s orders filed on May 9, 2008

and May 19, 2008. Plaintiffs object to (1) the Magistrate Judge’s rulings regarding Plaintiffs’

third motion to compel the production of documents; (2) the Magistrate Judge’s denial without

prejudice of Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to take Gregg Motsenbocker’s deposition;

(3) the Magistrate Judge’s denial without prejudice of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to take nine

additional depositions; and (4) the Magistrate Judge’s denial without prejudice of Plaintiffs’

motion to extend the discovery deadline. 

When considering objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive discovery order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order

“that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to

the magistrate judge’s factual determinations and discretionary decisions. Computer

Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). The

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 118 Filed 08/01/08 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 07cv0773 BTM(NLS)

“contrary to law” standard applies to a magistrate judge’s purely legal determinations. Id.

The Magistrate Judge acted within her discretion in denying without prejudice

Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to take Gregg Motsenbocker’s deposition. The

Magistrate Judge ruled that based on the information before her she did not see a need for

an additional day of deposition, but provided that the parties could agree to extend the

deposition for an additional 3.5 hours. Apparently, Plaintiffs used the additional 3.5 hours

and deposed Gregg Motsenbocker for a total of 10.5 hours. Plaintiffs state that they have

completed about 85% of their questioning but need additional time to ask questions

regarding records that are the subject of the pending motions. The Magistrate Judge did not

prohibit Plaintiffs from making any further motions for additional time supported by good

cause (such as newly produced documents). Therefore, Plaintiffs may apply to the

Magistrate Judge for additional time if Plaintiffs feel that the relief is warranted.

The Magistrate Judge also acted within her discretion in denying without prejudice

Plaintiffs’ request to take a total of nineteen depositions. At the time Plaintiffs made the

request, Plaintiffs had not taken any depositions even though the discovery cutoff was in

three weeks. The Magistrate Judge had cause to be dubious about Plaintiffs’ intent to take

nineteen depositions. It appears that Plaintiffs have now completed or are in the process of

completing a number of depositions. If, after the completion of ten depositions, Plaintiffs still

believe the additional depositions are necessary, Plaintiffs may renew their request before

the Magistrate Judge. If Plaintiffs renew their request, for each additional witness, Plaintiffs

must specify what information they expect to obtain, why the information cannot be obtained

by other methods, and why the information is not cumulative and is pertinent to Plaintiffs’

claims.

Similarly, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse her discretion in denying with prejudice

Plaintiffs’ application to extend the scheduling order dates. Again, at the time Plaintiffs made

the request, only three weeks remained before the discovery cut-off and Plaintiffs had not

yet taken a single deposition. Now that depositions have taken place and Plaintiffs are

pressing forward with discovery in earnest, the Magistrate Judge may be more receptive to

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 118 Filed 08/01/08 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 07cv0773 BTM(NLS)

an application to extend the scheduling order dates. Furthermore, this Court may extend

the discovery cut-off date, depending on the resolution of Plaintiffs’ objections regarding the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the motion to compel.

With respect to the motion to compel, the Court will entertain oral argument regarding

the requests still in dispute. The hearing is set for August 26, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 118 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 3