FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER, Judge, United States District Court.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's November 13, 2002, Order (docket #283). The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for December 16, 2002, is removed from the Court's calendar.
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of two aspects of the Magistrate Judge's November 13, 2002, Order. First, with Interrogatories 1-7, Plaintiffs seek discovery into the details of statements, reported in the Los Angeles Times, that were purportedly made by the County Supervisor Defendants during a Board Meeting regarding the Sheriff Department's budget. Second, Plaintiffs seek discovery into the full names of each Supervisor Defendant and the dates of his or her service on the Board of Supervisors.
This Court must uphold the Magistrate Judge's ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatories 1-7 on the basis of legislative privilege. Plaintiffs argue that absolute legislative immunity is unavailable to the Supervisor Defendants because they remain in this action only in their official capacity, and absolute legislative immunity shields them only in their individual capacities. Defendants correctly argue, however, that a separate testimonial legislative privilege applies. See Cano v. Davis, 193 F. Supp.2d 1177, 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Burtnick v. McClean, 76 F.3d 611, 613 (4th Cir. 1996).
Interrogatory 7 seeks a "two-inch-thick stack of papers" consisting of excessive-force lawsuits filed against the sheriff's department in or about June 2002. The contents of these documents are irrelevant to the current action, which addresses events that occurred over two years ago.
The Magistrate Judge's ruling regarding Interrogatories 1-7 is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatory 8 was denied by the Magistrate Judge as "equally available" to all parties. The "equally available" reference apparently recognizes that this information is publicly available. Additionally, this information was previously provided to Plaintiffs. ( See Opposition at Exh. E, F). The Magistrate Judge's ruling regarding Interrogatory 8 is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Interrogatory 9 merely requests information regarding the identity of those who participated in drafting the responses to Interrogatories 1-8. Plaintiffs' request for production of documents similarly requests documents that support the statements set forth in the interrogatories. The Motion to Compel responses to these requests was denied in light of the denial of Interrogatories 1-8. The Magistrate Judge's ruling regarding this issue is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's November 13, 2002, Order is hereby denied.