California Earthquake Authority v. Metropolitan West Securities LLC, et al

Filing 120

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/21/12 DENYING 115 Motion for Reconsideration and AFFIRMING 110 Order. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE
AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-00291-MCE-GGH

ORDER
v.
METROPOLITAN WEST
SECURITIES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Through this action, Plaintiff California Earthquake Authority (“CEA”) seeks

19

recovery of the majority of Defendant Metropolitan West Securities, LLC’s investment of

20

approximately $62 million of CEA funds into Mainsail, a structured investment vehicle

21

holding residential mortgage backed securities. On October 18, 2012, CEA served a

22

third-party subpoena on non-party Wells Capital Management, Inc. and Wells Fargo

23

Funds Management, LLC (successor by merger to Evergreen Investment Management

24

Company, LLC (“Evergreen”)). (ECF No. 105 at 4-5.) The subpoena contained four

25

requests for production. Evergreen served its Objections to CEA’s subpoena on October

26

31, 2012. (See ECF No. 105-2.) CEA then moved to compel the production of those

27

documents from Evergreen. (See ECF No. 104.)

28
1

1

On November 21, 2012, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)1,

2

Magistrate Judge Hollows issued an Order directing Evergreen to produce certain

3

documents responsive to CEA’s requests for production, in accordance with parameters

4

set forth in the Order. (ECF No. 110 at 10.) Judge Hollows found that those documents

5

were potentially relevant to the instant litigation, as the subpoena appears reasonably

6

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Id. at 9.) Presently pending

7

before the Court is Evergreen’s Request for Reconsideration by the District Judge of the

8

Magistrate Judge’s Ruling. (ECF No. 115).

9

In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply

10

the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule

11

303(f), as specifically authorized by Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this

12

standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's decision unless it has a “definite

13

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal.,

14

Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court

15

believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after

16

considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it

17

would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal

18

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

19

Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

20

was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The November 21, 2012, Order is

21

therefore affirmed.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

The Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 115) is DENIED; and

24

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 110) is AFFIRMED.

25

Dated: December 21, 2012
_______________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise
noted.

2