Filed: Jul. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . This lawsuit arises from the death of Myra L. Micalizio, who was shot and killed by Butte County Sheriff's Deputies Charles W. Lair and Mary Barker during their response to an April 26, 2018, 9-1-1 call. See Complaint, ECF No. 1, 1-5. Presently before the Court is Defendant County of Butte's ("County") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 20) of the Magistrate Judge's January 14, 2019 Order (ECF No. 16) granting in part and denying in part
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . This lawsuit arises from the death of Myra L. Micalizio, who was shot and killed by Butte County Sheriff's Deputies Charles W. Lair and Mary Barker during their response to an April 26, 2018, 9-1-1 call. See Complaint, ECF No. 1, 1-5. Presently before the Court is Defendant County of Butte's ("County") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 20) of the Magistrate Judge's January 14, 2019 Order (ECF No. 16) granting in part and denying in part P..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
This lawsuit arises from the death of Myra L. Micalizio, who was shot and killed by Butte County Sheriff's Deputies Charles W. Lair and Mary Barker during their response to an April 26, 2018, 9-1-1 call. See Complaint, ECF No. 1, 1-5. Presently before the Court is Defendant County of Butte's ("County") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 20) of the Magistrate Judge's January 14, 2019 Order (ECF No. 16) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery. The Magistrate Judge's Order granted discovery of two Internal Affairs investigation reports relating to prior allegations of excessive force by Defendant Lair, declined to compel discovery regarding an Internal Affairs investigation related to social media posts by Lair, and ordered that the parties execute a stipulated protective order concerning said investigative reports. ECF No. 16 at 3. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff to be the prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) and ordered that the County pay one-half of Plaintiff's reasonable expenses in bringing the Motion, in the amount of $2,115. ECF No. 16, 2-3. In its present Motion, the County does not seek reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's substantive discovery rulings, but instead asks this Court to reverse the awarding of statutory fees to Plaintiff. ECF No. 20, at 2. For the following reasons, the County's Motion is DENIED.1
In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).2 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's decision unless it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Prods. Of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
After holding a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Magistrate Judge issued a written order stating, in part, that:
The court does not agree with defendants, however, that plaintiff is not a prevailing party under Rule 37(a)(5) because plaintiff obtained nothing more than defendants had offered in the first place. Specifically, while plaintiff ultimately agreed to the protective order sought by defendants, plaintiff only did so only after plaintiff brought the instant motion, and after the court announced its decision from the bench as to the Internal Affairs investigation reports relating to alleged use of excessive force. The court notes there is a difference between resisting being coerced into stipulating to a protective order and volunteering a protective order in the spirit of cooperation following an adverse ruling. Had defendants timely sought a protective order, that issue could have been litigated and resolved and potentially have obviated the need for plaintiff to bring the instant motion to compel.
ECF No. 16 at 2-3. Upon reviewing the record in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's discovery ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The County's Motion for Reconsideration (EFC No. 20) is therefore DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 16) is consequently AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
