Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise

Filing 86

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 07/28/11 DENYING 84 Motion for Reconsideration. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELISSA BRINCKERHOFF,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-00023-MCE-GGH

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TOWN OF PARADISE,

15

Defendant.

16

----oo0oo----

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for

19

Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 84) asking

20

this Court to reconsider various portions of a recent discovery

21

order (ECF No. 83).

22

Request is DENIED.

23

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the

24

assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to

25

law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as

26

specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

27

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

28

///
1

1

Under this standard, the Court must accept the magistrate judge’s

2

decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a

3

mistake has been committed.”

4

Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S.

5

602, 622 (1993).

6

by the magistrate judge were at least plausible, after

7

considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not

8

reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence

9

differently.

10

Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal.,

If the Court believes the conclusions reached

Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co.,

Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997).

11

All but one of Plaintiff’s challenges here are to the

12

magistrate judge’s refusal to order the taking of additional or

13

reconvened depositions because there was insufficient time to

14

conduct those proceedings prior to the July 21, 2011, non-expert

15

discovery cutoff.

16

Request, this Court denied Plaintiff’s then-pending request to

17

amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order to extend the above deadline.

18

Accordingly, given the fact that non-expert discovery is now

19

closed, the magistrate judge did not clearly err in refusing to

20

order the taking of additional depositions.

21

On the same day Plaintiff filed her instant

Plaintiff’s remaining challenge is to the magistrate judge’s

22

denial of Plaintiff’s request for an order directing Defendant

23

Town of Paradise to supplement its Amended Rule 26 Disclosure

24

Statement regarding the anticipated testimony of a potential

25

witness, Yvette Streeter.

26

Defendant’s disclosure statement was incomplete, necessitating

27

the further disclosure of additional information.

28

///

More specifically, Plaintiff contends

2

1

The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s request as untimely,

2

however, and Plaintiff makes no real argument, nor points this

3

Court to any relevant authority, indicating that the magistrate

4

judge clearly erred in reaching his conclusion.

5
6
7
8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration of
Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 84) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2011

9
10
11

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3