United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation

Filing 82

ORDER for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff-Intervenors' 80 Request for Reconsideration and ORDER Denying 81 Motion for Reconsideration as Redundant signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/08/2012. Opposition due by 3/15/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
DELFINA OCHOA, MARIBEL
)
OCHOA, JOSE OCHOA, and
)
GUADALUPE MARTINEZ,
)
)
Plaintiffs-Intervenors
)
v.
)
)
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS
)
CORPORATION, and
)
DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
UNITED STATES EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

1:09-cv-2255 AWI MJS
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFINTERVENORS’ REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(DOC. NO. 80) AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (DOC.
NO. 81) AS REDUNDANT
(Doc. No. 81)

19
20
21

On February 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for

22

discovery. See Doc. No. 78. On February 20, 2012, Plaintiff-Intervenors timely filed a request

23

for reconsideration of that order. See Doc. No. 80; Local Rule 303(b). Per Local Rule 303(d),

24

Defendants were required to file an opposition by February 27, 2012. Defendants did not do so.

25

Nevertheless, the Court finds that a response from Defendants would be beneficial, and will

26

therefore order Defendants to file either an opposition or notice of non-opposition.

27

Additionally, on February 29, 2012, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a formal motion for

28

reconsideration of the February 6 order. See Doc. No. 81. The brief for the “motion” for

1

reconsideration is identical to the brief for the “request” for reconsideration. Cf. Doc. No. 80

2

with Doc. No. 81. Because the “motion” for reconsideration is redundant, the Court will deny

3

that motion for administrative purposes only. The denial of the “motion” for reconsideration

4

(Doc. No. 81) will have no effect on the Court’s resolution of “request” for reconsideration (Doc.

5

No. 80).

6
7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 80) on or by March 15, 2012;1 and

9
10

Defendant shall file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenors’

2.

Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED as redundant.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
0m8i78

March 8, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

27

If the Court later determines that oral argument would be beneficial, it will set a hearing date. See Local
Rule 303(e).

28

daw

2