California Earthquake Authority v. Metropolitan West Securities LLC, et al
Filing
121
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/21/12 DENYING 115 Request for Reconsideration and AFFIRMING the Magistrate Judge's 110 Order. (Manzer, C)
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
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
1
28
All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise
noted.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
The Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 115) is DENIED; and
3
2.
The Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 110) is AFFIRMED.
4
Dated: December 21, 2012
5
___________________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR
CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7
8
DEAC_Signature-END:
9
10
04if0d0-fkhfkh
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?