222 Order Denying P Recon

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 222

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 9

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

10 Plaintiff,

11 12

vs.

13 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 14 15

Defendants.

16

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-F-07-026 OWW/TAG ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT COURT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING (Doc. 214)

17

On September 1, 2008, Plaintiff timely filed a request for

18

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order filed on August

19

22, 2008 (Doc. 207).

20

To the extent Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration

21

challenges the appointment of a special master, Plaintiff’s

22

request is DENIED as moot.

23

the Magistrate Judge denied Defendants’ request for the

24

appointment of a special master (Doc. 220).

25 26

By Order filed on September 5, 2008,

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s issuance of a protective order against Plaintiff’s counsel as 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 222

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 2 of 3

1

well as Defendants’ counsel and the denial of sanctions against

2

Defendants’ counsel based on alleged actions or inaction by

3

Plaintiff’s counsel.

4

Pursuant to Rule 72-303, a District Judge upholds a

5

Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a referred matter unless it is

6

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

7

Rules of Civil Procedure; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

8

erroneous” standard applies to a Magistrate Judge’s findings of

9

fact.

See Rule 72(a), Federal The “clearly

Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust,

10

508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

“A findings is ‘clearly erroneous’

11

when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing

12

[body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm

13

conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

14

“contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of

15

purely legal determinations by the Magistrate Judge.

16

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378

17

(S.D.Cal.2000); Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91

18

(3rd Cir.1992).

19

apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of

20

procedure.”

21

(E.D.N.Y.2006).

Id. at 622.

The

FDIC v.

“An order is contrary to law when it fails to

DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159, 163

22

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.

23

record establishes that the conduct of both attorneys during

24

depositions is at fault and that the protective order issued by

25

the Magistrate Judge is well within her discretion and necessary

26

to manage the process of discovery in this action. 2

The

The mutual

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 222

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 3 of 3

1

protective order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

2

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions were denied without prejudice

3

by the Magistrate Judge because Plaintiff failed to document the

4

requested amounts.

5

or contrary to law. IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 7

These rulings also are not clearly erroneous

Dated: 668554

September 10, 2008

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3