AtPac, Inc v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc., et al

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 12/14/2010 DENYING 61 Defendants' MOTION for RECONSIDERATION by District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling Dated 11/18/2010. (Kirksey Smith, K)

AtPac, Inc v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc., et al

Doc. 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. APTITUDE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, COUNTY OF NEVADA, a California county, and GREGORY J. DIAZ, an individual, Defendants. / ----oo0oo---Defendants move for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's November 18, 2010, Order (Docket No. 56) regarding requests for production of documents and admission. 61.) Reviewing the Order under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the question is not whether this court 1 (Docket No. ATPAC, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----

NO. CIV. 2:10-294 WBS KJM ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2010

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

would impose a different sanction or rule differently.

The

question is whether the Magistrate Judge's Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. was. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' request for reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge's November 18, 2010, Order be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. DATED: December 14, 2010 This court cannot conclude that it

2