Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 174

ORDER denying 150 Motion for Reconsideration of motion to compel production of documents. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on December 18, 2009. (cnn)

Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 174

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 174

Filed 12/18/09 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOHN WARD, JR. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. ORDER Now on this 18th day of December, 2009, comes on for Civil No. 08-4022 DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF

consideration Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Motion and Brief for District Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Cisco's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (document #150) and the response and thereto. The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows: 1. On November 2, 2009, the Court referred Defendant Cisco

Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Cisco System, Inc.'s First Request for Production and Brief in Support Thereof

(document #101) to United States Magistrate Judge Erin L. Setser. 2. Following a telephonic hearing, Judge Setser entered an

Order, on November 4, 2009, granting in part, and denying in part the motion to compel (document #138). 3. On November 16, 2009, Defendant Cisco filed two (2)

motions seeking reconsideration of Judge Setser's Order: * the instant motion, Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Motion and Brief

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 174

Filed 12/18/09 Page 2 of 3

for District Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Cisco's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (document #150); and, * Judge to Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Motion and Brief for Magistrate Reconsider Order Denying Cisco's Motion to Compel

Production of Documents Based on Misrepresentations to the Court (document #151). 4. In addition to the issues concerning defendant's

Requests for Production Nos. 4, 5, 9, 11, and 17 presented to Judge Setser in document #151, Cisco also seeks reconsideration of Judge Setser's ruling concerning defendant's Request for

Production No. 12. 5. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court may reconsider

a ruling of a Magistrate Judge pretrial matters "where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." (8th Cir. 2007). 6. The Court, having reviewed the instant motion, the See also Ferguson v. U.S., 484 F.3d 1068, 1077

plaintiff's response, and Judge Setser's rulings on both documents #101 and #151, finds no evidence that Judge Setser's ruling on document #101 is clearly erroneous or contrary to the law, and therefore, finds that Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Motion and Brief for District Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge's Order Denying

-2-

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 174

Filed 12/18/09 Page 3 of 3

Cisco's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (document #150) should be, and hereby is, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-