Hipschman

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN, an Case No.: 22-cv-903-AJB-BLM individual; et al., 12

ORDER OVERRULING

13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DENIAL

14 v. OF THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL 15 THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public TRAINING MATERIALS 16 entity; et al., 17 (Doc. No. 155) Defendants. 18 19 20 Following the Magistrate Judge’s orders denying Carolina Hipschman and 21 Alexander Hipschman’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to compel the County of San Diego 22 (“County”) to produce certain training materials and their motion for reconsideration, 23 Plaintiffs filed the instant objection pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(a). 24 (Doc. Nos. 137, 154, 155.) For the reasons stated below, the Court OVERRULES the 25 entirety of Plaintiffs’ objections. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Plaintiffs’ action arises from the County’s and its social workers’…