Song v. Drenberg
- Lucy Koh
- 5:18-cv-06283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Song v. Drenberg, Judge Koh denied Plaintiffs’ request to overturn a magistrate judge’s discovery-sanctions order.
James K. Song and his counsel, who were subject to the discovery sanctions, and Aaron Drenberg, who was awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs under the magistrate judge’s order.
What happened
In Song v. Drenberg, the plaintiffs asked the district court to overturn a magistrate judge’s order requiring James K. Song and his counsel to pay Aaron Drenberg’s reasonable attorney fees and costs related to motions to compel discovery.
The court explained that it could reconsider the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order only if the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The plaintiffs did not make that showing. The magistrate judge had found that they failed to follow earlier discovery orders and that their failure was not substantially justified.
Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The court noted that the plaintiffs had also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, but it decided the motion before allowing it to be automatically denied under the local rule.
The detailed version
- Song v. Drenberg · No. 5:18-cv-06283
- Lucy Koh
- Nov. 4, 2019
Background
On October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking relief from a nondispositive pretrial order issued by Magistrate Judge DeMarchi. The challenged order, issued October 11, 2019, imposed sanctions on Mr. Song and his counsel for failing to comply with several earlier discovery orders, including a May 2, 2019 order.
The sanctions required Mr. Song and his counsel to reimburse Mr. Drenberg for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in preparing motions to compel concerning the document requests at issue. Before imposing the sanctions, Judge DeMarchi gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to show that their failure to comply was substantially justified, but concluded that it was not. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) authorizes sanctions, including reasonable expenses and attorney fees, for failing to obey a discovery order.
Review standard and ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order when it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.
Judge Koh found that the plaintiffs had not shown that Judge DeMarchi’s sanctions order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore denied the Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge.
Other procedural details
Under Northern District of California Local Rule 72-2, a motion of this type may be denied by written order without a response or hearing. If the court does not issue a denial or set a briefing schedule within 14 days, the motion is deemed denied. The plaintiffs had recorded a February 20, 2020 hearing date and briefing schedule, but the court said those dates were not authorized. The plaintiffs also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on November 1, 2019. The court decided the motion before it would otherwise have been deemed denied, stating that it did so to speed resolution of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.