Wallis et al v. Centennial Insurance Company Inc et al

Filing 213

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/1/13 DENYING 210 Motion for Reconsideration. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11

13

DALE M. WALLIS, D.V.M., JAMES
L. WALLIS, and HYGIEIA
BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES, INC.,
a California Corporation,

14

Plaintiffs,

12

15
16
17
18
19

NO. CIV. 08-02558 WBS GGH
ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING

v.
CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., a New York corporation,
ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE,
CO., INC., a New York
corporation,
Defendants,
/

20
21

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.
/

22
23
24

----oo0oo---On February 22, 2013, counsel for plaintiffs filed a

25

motion seeking reconsideration of part of an order issued by the

26

assigned magistrate judge on February 11, 2013, (Docket No. 204).

27

(Docket No. 210.)

28

are reviewed by courts under the “clearly erroneous or contrary

Magistrate rulings on nondispositive motions

1

1

to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

2

R. Civ. P. 72(a); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f); see also Computer

3

Econs., Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983

4

(S.D. Cal. 1999).

5

See Fed.

The magistrate judge’s order sustaining Atlantic

6

Mutual’s objection that it was not a proper party was supported

7

by applicable legal standards.

8

28, 2013 Order dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims against

9

Atlantic Mutual for failure to state a claim.

The court notes that its February

(See Feb. 28, 2013

10

Order (Docket No. 212).)

11

determination that defendants should be given a chance to file

12

supplemental responses rather than have plaintiffs’ Requests be

13

deemed admitted contrary to the applicable legal standards.

14

Under Rule 36(a)(6), when the court finds that an answer is

15

insufficient it may either deem the matter admitted or order that

16

an amended answer be served.

17

declining to give plaintiffs their preferred relief--deemed

18

admission--was not contrary to law.

19

Neither was the magistrate judge’s

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 36(a)(6).

Thus,

The magistrate judge appears to have erred, however, in

20

finding that the parties failed to meet and confer, a

21

prerequisite to awarding sanctions for discovery disputes under

22

Rule 37.

23

parties’ Joint Statement Re: Discovery Dispute, (Docket No. 197),

24

efforts to meet and confer were attempted in November and

25

December of 2012.

26

discovery motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court

27

has discretion to award sanctions under Rule 37 after an

28

opportunity to be heard.

See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(5)(c).

(J. Statement at 2-7.)

According to the

Nonetheless, when a

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(a)(5)(B).
2

Here,

1

notwithstanding the parties’ minimal efforts to meet and confer,

2

the court does not find that sanctions are warranted here.

3

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration will be

4

denied.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

6

reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

7

DATED

March 1, 2013

8
9
10
11
12
13

:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3