Bartlett v. BP West Coast Products LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's order regarding Defendant Phillips 66's request to claw back a document based on attorney-client privilege. The court overruled the objections, finding that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's July 17, 2020 Order are overruled.“Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order.” | de novo | agree with court The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for objections to a magistrate judge's nondispositive order under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Ninth Circuit precedent. It correctly distinguishes between factual findings (clearly erroneous) and legal conclusions (contrary to law/independent judgment). The court applies this standard and concludes that the objections failed to meet the burden. While the order is brief and does not detail the specific legal or factual errors in the Magistrate Judge's ruling, the procedural posture and the application of the correct standard of review are legally sound. The result is defensible based on the recited standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly states the standard of review for objections to a magistrate judge's nondispositive order. It correctly cites the relevant statute and case law. It applies the standard to the objections and concludes they are not met. The reasoning is concise but legally accurate for the procedural step taken.
Opinion
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 PERSIAN GULF INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-DMS-AGS 11 Plaintiff, Lead Case No. 3:18-cv-01374-DMS- AGS (consolidated with Case No. 12 v. 3:18-cv-01377-DMS-AGS)
13 BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, et al., ORDER OVERRULING 14 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO Defendants. JULY 17, 2020 ORDER ON 15 RICHARD BARTLETT, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REGARDING DEFENDANT 16 Plaintiffs, PHILLIPS 66’S REQUEST TO CLAW BACK DOCUMENT 17 v. 18 BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, et al., 19 Defendants. 20 21 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections to Magistrate Judge 22 Andrew Schopler’s July 17, 2020 Order on Plaintiffs’ motion regarding Defendant 23 Phillips 66’s request to claw back a document on the basis of attorney-client privilege. 24 Phillips 66 filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ objections, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. After 25 thoroughly reviewing these briefs, the Magistrate Judge’s Order and the relevant case 26 law, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections. 27 A magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive issue is reviewed by the district 28 court under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 1 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME 2 || Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ 3 || when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record 4 |\is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United 5 || States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In contrast, the “contrary 6 ||to law” standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations by a 7 magistrate judge. See e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 8 || 1992); Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 9 || (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district court should exercise its independent judgment with 10 respect to a magistrate judge’s legal conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 11 |/686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). 12 Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order do not establish that the 13 || Magistrate Judge’s ruling was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, 14 || the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: September 18, 2020 17 ns ym. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein Civil 96-0039-B · 1996-02-14