Maddern v. Austin
| Decision Date | 22 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-1298-MMA (BLM) |
| Parties | RONALD MADDERN, Plaintiff, v. LLOYD AUSTIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S JANUARY 28, 2022 ORDER [DOC. NO 25]
Plaintiff Ronald Maddern (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Lloyd Austin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense (“Defendant”), pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 et seq. and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Doc. No. 21 (“FAC”). Plaintiff challenges the denial of his application for certain TriCare health benefits available under 10 U.S.C. § 1075. See id.
On January 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for discovery related to allegedly improper ex parte contacts. See Doc. No. 23. On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff objected to Judge Major's order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). See Doc. No. 25. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's objections, and Plaintiff replied to Defendant's response. See Doc. Nos 27 28. The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 26. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections.
Plaintiff is a retired Staff Sergeant with the United States Army who, because of his service, qualifies for “health care benefits provided to retired uniformed service members under the ‘TRICARE' program” pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1075. FAC ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff challenges the denial of his application for certain TriCare health benefits following the insertion of two Vertiflex Superion (“Superion”) interspinous spacers, which were “inserted [in]to [Plaintiff's] spine to relieve pressure on some of the vertebrae.” Id. ¶¶ 28, 36, 38, 39.
Judicial review of agency action under the APA is generally limited to review of the administrative record. See 5 U.S.C. § 706. However, the Ninth Circuit has identified four narrow exceptions where augmentation of the administrative record is justified:
(1) if admission is necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision, (2) if the agency has relied on documents not in the record, (3) when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter, or (4) when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. USDA, 499 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996)). Here, Plaintiff “seeks discovery related to ex parte contacts engaged in by the Secretary's counsel (Ms. Greer), the ALJ who issued the recommended decision below (Ms. Noel), and the final decision maker (Dr. Yale)/his office.” Doc. No. 9 at 2.[2] Plaintiff contends that he has made a showing of agency bad faith or improper behavior that warrants this extra-record discovery. Id. at 12.
On January 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for discovery. See Doc. No. 23. On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant objections to Judge Major's discovery order. Doc. No. 25.
A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The magistrate judge's order will be upheld unless “it has been shown that the magistrate [judge]'s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The ‘clearly erroneous' standard applies to factual findings and discretionary decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” Obesity Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int'l, LLC, No. 15-cv-595-BAS (MDD), 2017 WL 3335736, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000)). “Under Rule 72(a), [a] finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Waterfall Homeowners Ass'n v. Viega, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 571, 575 (D. Nev. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Id. (citation omitted).
“When reviewing discovery disputes, however, the Magistrate [Judge] is afforded broad discretion, which will be overruled only if abused.” Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
Plaintiff objects to Judge Major's discovery order on six grounds. See Doc. No. 25. As an initial matter, the Court addresses the timeliness of Plaintiff's objections. The Court then addresses each of Plaintiff's objections in turn.
Defendant argues Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's order are untimely because Plaintiff failed to file the objections to the order within the 14-day deadline set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(a). See Doc. No. 27 at 5-6.
Here, Judge Major issued a written ruling denying Plaintiff's motion for discovery on Friday, January 28, 2022. Doc. No. 23. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, the 14-day period in which to object began the following day on Saturday, January 29, 2022. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(A). Starting the computation on Saturday, January 29, 2022, the Court counts each day. The final day of the 14-day objection window fell on Friday, February 11, 2022-a California state holiday that triggered the Rule 6(a)(1)(C) tolling provision.[3] Plaintiff filed his objections on Monday, February 14, 2022, which was the next day following February 11, 2022 that was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Therefore, Plaintiff's objections are timely.
Judge Major found the following regarding the discovery standard applicable to Plaintiff's claims:
Doc. No. 23 at 4-5. Plaintiff argues that “discovery related to [violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution] is guided only by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [and] does not arise under the APA.” Doc. No. 25 at 4.
As an initial matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiff “is precluded from asserting this objection, because he never raised this argument in his briefing on the underlying discovery motion.” Doc. No. 27 at 10. In his reply, Plaintiff urges that the issue was raised below in his discovery motion. Doc. No. 28 at 2 (citing Doc. No. 9 at 8).
Plaintiff's discovery motion is silent on the issue of which discovery standard applies to constitutional claims brought in connection with an APA case. Even assuming Plaintiff implicitly raised the objection in his discovery briefing the Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive. The Ninth Circuit has not addressed this issue. “A few district courts faced with both APA and constitutional claims determined that the constitutional claims ‘fundamentally overlap' with the APA claims and thus discovery was unnecessary.” California v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., Case Nos. 19-cv-04975-PJH, 19-cv-04980-PJH2020, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57540, at *66-67 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020) (citations omitted). “Alternatively, some courts have permitted some discovery when the APA and constitutional claims diverge in some meaningful way.” Id. at 67. Plaintiff satisfies neither test as his due process claim turns on precisely the same facts as the rest of the First Amended Complaint: the timeliness and basis of the agency's decisions. See Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Service, 58 F.Supp.3d 1191, 1238-41 (D.N.M. 2014) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial