Young v. CDCR

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/25/12. (Gonzalez, R)

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

HOWARD YOUNG,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CDCR, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:12-MC-0019 GSA
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Document #8)

14
15

BACKGROUND

16

This action is based on Plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoenas issued out of this court.

17

Plaintiff Howard Young (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding with a civil rights complaint in the United

18

States District Court for the Southern District of California, case number 09-CV-2545 DMS

19

JMA (“Southern District Court Case”). As part of their discovery in the Southern District Court

20

Case, Defendants issued subpoenas out of this District, seeking records maintained at Kern

21

Valley State Prison.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On June 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin denied the motion to quash subpoenas,
and this action was closed.
On June 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge
Austin’s June 4, 2012 order.

1
2

LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

3

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

4

(D.C.Cir. 1987). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

5

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

6

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986). When filing a motion for reconsideration,

7

Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances

8

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

9

grounds exist for the motion.” The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s

10

ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

11

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

12

evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm

13

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.

14

364, 395 (1948); see also Anderson v. Equifax Info. Services LLC, 2007 WL 2412249, at *1

15

(D.Or. 2007) (“Though Section 636(b)(1)(A) has been interpreted to permit de novo review of

16

the legal findings of a magistrate judge, magistrate judges are given broad discretion on

17

discovery matters and should not be overruled absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”).

18
19

“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration contains no new facts or law providing a reason for

20

reconsideration. As he did in the motion to quash, Plaintiff merely contends in a conclusory

21

fashion that the subpoenas are too broad because they relate to dates and incidents not relevant to

22

the Southern District Court Case against Defendants. As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

23

Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the discovery of any matter

24

“relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.”

25

Case contains allegations that Plaintiff suffered a MRSA or staph infection because Defendants

26

placed him in an administrative segregation cell that was not sanitary.

27
28

2

The underlying Southern District Court

The subpoenas seek

1

medical records and portions of Plaintiff’s Central File.

2

these records are relevant to both the necessity of placing Plaintiff in administrative segregation

3

and Plaintiff’s MRSA diagnosis and treatment. Further, Plaintiff’s Central File is relevant to

4

Plaintiff’s claims concerning the failure to provide him with a religious diet. Thus, Plaintiff has

5

not shown the Magistrate Judge’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion to quash was clear error.

6

CONCLUSION

7
8

As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:
9h0d30

June 25, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3