Reddy v. Precyse Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 120

ORDER Denying 118 Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/16/2015. (IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs 118 motion for reconsideration is DENIED.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KRISHNA REDDY,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

PRECYSE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

13

1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 118)

Defendant.

14
15
16

__________________________________/

17

On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff Krishna Reddy filed yet another a motion for reconsideration.

18 See Doc. 118. Although the motion is captioned as seeking reconsideration only of the
19 Magistrate Judge’s Order granting Defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions, Plaintiff has
20 employed the same broken-recordesque style of motions practice as before; in addition to
21 presenting the same arguments that the Magistrate Judge considered and rejected in his prior
22 order, Plaintiff continues to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s authority to hear discovery related
23 motions, and she continues to assert that the Magistrate Judge should be disqualified.1 The Court
24 is very aware of Plaintiff’s displeasure with the Magistrate Judge’s rulings. Such is not the basis
25 for a motion for reconsideration.
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s ongoing objections to this Court’s authority and the Magistrate Judge’s authority are noted and denied.
No further comment will be given on those issues here or in future orders.

1

1 Legal Standard
2

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a magistrate judge's ruling on non-dispositive

3 motions under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
4 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a
5 Magistrate Judge's order that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a);
6 see also Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991)
7 (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under
8 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)).
9

A magistrate judge's factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left

10 with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v.
11 International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir.1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D.
12 485, 489 (C.D.Cal.2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.”
13 Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
14 Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993) (citation
15 omitted).
16

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

17 determinations by a magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd
18 Cir.1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th
19 Cir.2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case
20 law, or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556
21 (D.Minn.2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y.2007);
22 Surles v. Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y.2001); see Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace,
23 570 F.Supp. 202, 205 (N.D.Cal.1983).
24

“Pretrial orders of a magistrate under § 636(b)(1)(A) ... are not subject to a de novo

25 determination....” Merritt v. International Bro. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th
26 Cir.1981). “The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding
27 court.” Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241; see Phoenix Engineering & Supply v. Universal Elec., 104 F.3d
28
2

1 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.1997) (“[T]he clearly erroneous standard allows [for] great deference.”) A
2 district court is able to overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with
3 the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v.
4 Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D.Cal.1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy
5 Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997)). Nonetheless, “[m]otions for reconsideration
6 are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in
7 their original briefs.” Hendon v. Baroya, 2012 WL 995757, at *1 (E.D.Cal.2012) (citing
8 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2001); Northwest Acceptance Corp.
9 v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir.1988)).
10 Discussion
This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Defendant’s motion to

11

12 compel and request for sanctions. See Doc. 109. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s motion
13 for reconsideration. See Doc. 118. The Magistrate Judge was well within his discretion to order
14 Plaintiff’s attendance at properly scheduled depositions. The Magistrate Judge was equally
15 within his discretion to order monetary sanctions based on Plaintiff’s repeated failure to attend
16 properly scheduled depositions, in violation of court orders. The Magistrate Judge’s Order is not
17 contrary to law or clearly erroneous.
18 Order
19

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

20 reconsideration (Doc. 118) is DENIED.
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: June 16, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3